Monday, November 18, 2019

UK "democracy" proved to be a sham as London court backs ITV bid to rig the general election

I'm not surprised that the SNP and Liberal Democrats have lost their challenge to ITV's rigged leaders' debate tomorrow night, but this is a dark day for what purports to be "British democracy", and make no mistake - this will distort the outcome of the election.  The only question remaining is how severe that impact will be.  I'm not sure the SNP's position will be dramatically worsened in relation to the Tories, because people thinking of voting Tory to "stop Indyref 2" are unlikely to be SNP-Tory floating voters anyway.  The much bigger danger to the SNP is in seats where Labour are their main opponents.  Traditionally there has been considerable overlap between the SNP and Labour support, with a large number of voters open-minded about voting for either party.  If ITV succeed in presenting Jeremy Corbyn as the only alternative to a Tory government, Labour could start to come back from the dead in a number of Scottish constituencies, most obviously the six marginals they currently hold.

Subject to legal advice, I hope the SNP are at least still considering their options about challenging the BBC and Sky debates.  On the face of it, they ought to have a better case against Sky, who are planning to exclude the third-largest party but include the fourth-largest party.  But as far as ITV are concerned, we'll just have to get our prayer mats out and hope that this shameful attempt to stitch up the general election has a relatively limited effect.

*  *  *

71 comments:

  1. Why didn't the SNP take stv to court? They are after all the franchise holder for the two exclusively Scottish regions and should therefore be held to account for any itv programmes transmitted in central & northern Scotland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did wonder about that, but presumably they took advice on the most promising legal tactic.

      Delete
    2. Not the best advice as it turns out. Also itv have deep pockets and stv don't so stv may have conceded the issue without a fight. We'll never know now.

      Delete
    3. Just because one tactic failed, it doesn't necessarily follow that a different tactic would have succeeded. In these situations you always have to jump one way or the other based on the best assessment available.

      Delete
    4. The SNP knew they were going to lose this court case, they did it as a demonstration to voters in Scotland to show them in how much contempt Scotland is held

      Will it work is another question

      Delete
  2. Maybe being a bit naive here but i think the debate may be a car crash waiting to happen.
    I'm not so sure the participants will emerge too well from this. This could end up being one big slagfest.
    The public has a very cynical view of politicians at the mo and i think the SNP might benefit from not being there...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobody has ever benefited from not being in a leaders' debate. (Unless the two participants start attacking each other with machetes.) All that will happen is that people watching will forget the SNP exist for the duration.

      Delete
    2. They could be mentioned a fair bit though, as "two referendums" has been one of Johnson's main anti-Corbyn lines.

      Delete
    3. And then, outrageously, the SNP will have no right of reply. I'm not sure whether that's better or worse.

      Delete
    4. Not sure i agree with you James. There are numerous examples of politicians having a mare. I do think the SNP has to play to the Scottish public and emphasise the undemocratic nature of this debate....however i do think neither Johnson and Corbyn will necessarily benefit from this event

      Delete
    5. If Johnson has a mare, Corbyn will benefit. If Corbyn has a mare, Johnson will benefit. If both have a mare, nobody will benefit. There are no (realistic) circumstances in which the SNP benefit from a rigged debate. None.

      Delete
  3. Nobody's going to be watching.
    General public sick to the back teeth of politics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's get real. There'll be millions of people watching. With a bit of luck the figure might be lower than in past years due to less of a novelty value, but it's guaranteed to be millions.

      Delete
    2. Millions in Scotland?

      Delete
    3. No, millions in the UK. Hundreds of thousands in Scotland.

      Delete
    4. And for those who don't watch it, it will also be deconstructed online and in the dead tree press for days afterwards.

      Delete
  4. 'No-one has ever benefited from not being in the debate', not no sure, Teresa May may well have, the more the public saw of her, the more unpopular she became.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Theresa May refused to take part in the debates and the Tories did less well than expected at the election. Whether those two facts are directly connected is hard to say, but they don't exactly lend weight to your theory.

      Delete
    2. Labour did less well than expected in 2015, and the Lib Dems in 2010, doesn't necessarily mean Miliband and Clegg were wrong to take part in the debates.

      May's approval rating dropped throughout the 2017 campaign, difficult to think seeing more of her, or her being more prominent would have changed that. As she was becoming more well known to the public she was becoming less and less popular.

      Tories ran a presidential style campaign at the outset using her name at every opportunity, but by the end there was barely a mention of her.

      Her campaign had so many flaws, the idea more of May would have produced a better outcome, while we'll never know, to me seems highly improbable.

      Expectations were based on polls, which in most cases, were a little bit out in 2017, despite the narrowing toward the end.

      Delete
    3. "to me seems highly improbable"

      Not half as improbable as your claim that being left out of the biggest setpiece events of the election campaign can somehow be a good thing.

      Delete
  5. Johnson will probably have a pop at Corbyn for not ruling out indyref2 for the next zillion years. Corbyn, therefore, will be forced to up his rhetoric as a result and sound even more anti-indyref2 than he is already.

    Both will sound even more anti-Scotland than they do already.

    Could that help the SNP?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, it might have done, if they'd been there to get a word in edgeways.

      Delete
    2. It will be quite something if during this rigged 'debate' the pair of them even mention Scotland and/or independence. I bet they will though, they will put the boot in for sure.

      This whole rigging of political choice and freedom, is a travesty of all that is decent and democratic in the so called 'UK'.

      Devolution is a joke, Scotland is treated with utter contempt, and the people of Scotland treated as second class. I would say citizens, but in English terms they call people, 'subjects'. Subjects of a corrupt, increasingly far right wing and very dodgy regime.

      In normalising the silencing of the SNP, it is a very sinister and worrying tactic, and a portend for what's to come post Brexit. Scary times.

      Delete
  6. Weekly subsample average (as even Prof Curtice is reduced to using them now...)

    SNP 37
    CON 26
    LAB 17
    LD 13
    BXP 3
    GRN 3

    Some unfavourable companies in that mix, but still shaky.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt if that's as reliable as a YouGov-only average, but even on those figures the SNP would make gains from both Labour and the Tories.

      Delete
    2. It's completely unreliable, at least in the sense it doesn't match weighted Scottish polls.

      Delete
    3. Boris is saying unleash your potential the Nat sis said years ago release your potential followed by independence in Europe. The Nat sis could indicate if they want Scotland to participate in the new EU Army as proposed by the Frog Rothchild banker, Macron.

      Delete
    4. Well it's been nearly a month since a national poll. If the Tories drift back to their 2017 GB showing the Scots Tories are going to drift up too. Labour too. Most of this will come from the unionist pool. SNP do better with a divided opposition if it does sit at 38-42%

      Delete
    5. Based on my understanding of how Scobaldi is averaging that is. Will make things uber conservative and below full Scottish polling for the SNP.

      My own average is boringly stable. SNP at least (not very SNP friendly) Yougov type levels and 20 points clear of the Tories. The latter do seem to have edged up a couple of points to low 20's since brexit have departed the scene.

      Delete
    6. We're going to smash the Scot Nats and the Corbyn Commies come election day.

      Delete
    7. "If the Tories drift back to their 2017 GB showing the Scots Tories are going to drift up too. Labour too."

      There is no basis for this assumption. It's a possibility, but there is no historical pattern based on recent elections to that effect.

      The polling is completely different this time, particularly in terms of leader ratings. Corbyn was actually quite popular with Scots last time around for example. Johnson's likewise as popular as fresh shit in a lift.

      It is an English election now, and the biggest danger is low Scots turnout as a result of the racism/exclusion shown towards them, with their focus turning to holyrood as they prepare for independence / detach from British politics.

      What we can be sure of is that a Brexit Tory victory seals the end of the union. Yes will move to permanent majority. The polls have said this clearly enough, and it's as we expect.

      The Tories will then need to decide to respect that and facilitate iref2, or (literally) send in English jackboots to take back control after shutting / neutering Holyrood and declaring Scots voting as illegal etc.

      I don't say this frivolously. It's how these things go. If a Section 30 is refused, some sort of violent crackdown will very, very likely follow just as night follows day. It's the route Spain has chosen. The moment you decide voting is illegal, you need to send in jackboots because the electorate won't have their vote taken from them. They will rise up against you. See Hong Kong and Catalonia for live examples.

      Delete
    8. The detachment of Scottish politics from UK patterns is stark in the post 2017 data, even though Scottish UK GE intention is the most 'British' you can get Scots to be voting-wise these days.

      http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/how-would-you-be-likely-to-vote-in-a-uk-general-election-asked-since-2017-gener#line

      While England e.g. saw the Lab and Con votes plunge to brexit and the Libs in massive swings (now reversing just as dramatically), the SNP remained all but unchanged, only edging up slowly and steadily, presumably in line with Yes finally topping 50% on average. A group of voters now operating completely outside the British world.

      The UK swings have been mirrored in Scotland, but very much subdued as they have occurred in parties with a much lower share of the vote. So e.g. a 20 point shift from Con to Brx in the UK, was a rather paltry 5 point or so one in Scotland.

      If SNP voters turn out, they will do very well, and make good gains on 2017. If not, then gains may be minor and coming from recent Yes/Remain converts.

      Delete
  7. People who are going to vote who are in favour of independence are going to go to the SNP I would imagine - so there minds are most likely made up. Even if, worst case scenario, all soft no/yes voters go with unionist parties in the end, SNP will still have a good showing with the solid yes block.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Six train companies will be held up at the Scottish border with England for passport checks if Scotland becomes independent. The fabricated Irish backstop will pale into insignificance. Once all the illegal immigrants who have entered Scotland and are desperate to leave are removed back to Scotland the trains will commence. Bring a packed lunch. And then there is the bus companies and bus tours.

      Delete
    2. Not forgetting highwaymen and the stagecoaches crossing at dead of night rushing Jane Austen's latest novel north to the bookstores of North Britain.

      Delete
    3. The Soviet Victory at Stalingrad makes better reading.

      Delete
    4. Papa Boris's victory at Westminster better still.

      Delete
    5. Or Dr Moonshine's new mystery predictions.

      Delete
  8. So what to do?
    March on STV/ITV HQ?
    Seek to get transmission blocked in Scotland?
    Jam the phone lines/spin room channels?
    Write to your MP?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ITV debate will go ahead now, but the legal avenue isn't totally closed off for challenging the BBC and Sky debates, and the legal arguments may be slightly different in those cases. Jamming the phone lines is never a bad idea to demonstrate the strength of feeling. That's a better idea than marching on STV or ITV, which would inevitably be portrayed be portrayed in certain quarters as a "mob".

      Delete
    2. The last time a debate made a difference was JFK and Nixon. JFK went on to escalate the Vietnam War and slaughter millions, he was the god guy. Nixon eventually got elected and eh slaughtered many more and he was the bad guy.

      Delete
  9. Could we, perhaps fund a poll that we all agreed about? I am not at all rich, but I'd offer up £50 to get some sort of resolution to this nonsense. Anyone else in for it?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well we see Wingsy reverting to his Liberal Democrat roots again causing disruption by saying he hopes the SNP lose
    Some Independence website that, at least most of the posters on it want Independence

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seems to have lost the plot. But maybe not such a bad thing if people spread themselves around a wider range of indy sites.
      It always seemed too vulnerable, having so many indy eggs in the Wings basket.

      Delete
    2. His exact words were rather more complex. He said he hoped the SNP get as many seats as possible while at the same time he disliked half the candidates so much he hoped they lose. He has also been rather less than complimentary about the Lib Dems, Labour, the Tories, the Greens and the Brexit Party.

      I would describe his political status as scunnered but backing the SNP as the only show in town.

      Delete
    3. Campbell will be backing the SNP as the only show in town by voting Lib Dem, as usual. That is a party that opposes another Scottish referendum. Take your pick between very profitable millenarian blogshite, and real action.

      Delete
    4. If you live in Bath, and I did back in the 80s, voting Lib Dem to try and curb Maggie's excess was the main option although admittedly I voted Labour in 87 and even had Labour posters up in my window.

      It is currently a Lib Dem seat. If I was still there I would be torn. I dislike Swinson but I dislike Johnson far more. Labour has no chance in Bath and has never held the seat. What would you do given the stakes at play? Moral mazes FTW.

      Delete
    5. I wouldn't criticise Mr Campbell for voting Lib Dem in the past, because as you say it's a major dilemma when you live in a seat like that, but speaking personally I'd never vote (even on a tactical basis) for a party explicitly committed to blocking an independence referendum. There's no Green candidate in Bath this time, so God knows what I'd do. There's an independent candidate, so I might take a look at him and see whether he's a nutter or not. But the Lib Dems' stance on Scotland is even worse than Labour's, so I suppose if all else failed I'd have to vote Labour.

      Delete
  11. Response to Scottish Skier at 8:25 PM - I have been saying this all along, a violent crackdown will follow. We missed the one chance in 2014 for a soft divorce because they didn't believe it was a possibility or as some people suggest they fiddled with it. The only way Scotland will get free of the UK is after a bit of a blood bath - that's the way states get free of the UK - no-one ever gets away without 1) incitement followed by 2) a crackdown. That's the UK way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This happened to the people of my other country (Ireland) within living memory of some.

      Ireland was time and again promised 'home rule' and 'even better devolution', only for it to be shelved at the next opportune moment.

      The 1918 election saw a stunning peaceful democratic victory for Irish parliament + independence supporting parties. However, as thanks for tens of thousands of young Irish boys being slaughtered in the trenches fighting for the British empire, the English/British responded by shooting, burning and raping their way across Eire. 'Putting down the natives'.

      Other colonies received similar treatment. Ask the Boers or Kenyans about the concentration camps for example. Hitler just borrows the idea from the brits.

      So aye, the British cannot be trusted; racist violent repression is the way they do things. So when they are on telly openly announcing they plan to take away the right to vote from Scots, folks should be very concerned and listen to the advice of people from other former colonies.

      This should be calmly made clear on doorsteps; the English are saying they will take away your vote and declare any attempt for you to use it as illegal, likely followed by beating you up or imprisoning you.

      Delete
  12. With regard to Wings over Scotland - the guy and the site have been given way too much credit for the magnitude of the support for Scottish independence. I had never heard of him, the site nor the blue book until well into 2015. Somehow I managed to work out that independence was the best option for Scotland all on my very own - I am sure there are dozens of others like me out there if not scores. Pandering to his ego helps fuel his delusion about his place in the movement. Best to ignore him for his own sake as much as for the movement. If you want independence vote SNP - its that simple.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just an observation but most of us only mention Wings in response to your repeated moans about the site. If you didn't have multiple posts in every unrelated thread, Wings likely wouldn't be mentioned at all.

      Delete
    2. Hello hand and shrimp - you are thinking of a different anonymous to me. I was commenting on the post Anonymous November 18, 2019 at 11:28 PM. I was agreeing with your sentiment that we should ignore him. I can understand your confusion so I will now add identifiers to my posts. My identifier is WT.

      Delete
    3. Soz WT all the anons confuse me :)

      Delete
  13. Our broadcaster is not ITV though. STV have the power to easily opt-out of the transmission. People are aware of this? I hear nothing.

    STV is ITV all but in name.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It has been since I worked for them in the late 90s. It is a broadcaster producing very little own material apart from what can be made very cheaply. Unfortunate that STV won the franchise years ago.

      Delete
  14. Very scientific and useful information. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Frozen out of debates and another week passing without even a hint of a Scottish poll.

    This really is the English Brexit election. What Scotland, Wales and NI want does not even register.

    A shocking state of affairs.

    ReplyDelete
  16. At what point do we just accept that this is all just a democratic charade? The media is beyond rigged, the narrative lost and i'm sorry but whatever you think you are doing on the ground these days it will be swept away in a tweetstorm arranged by god knows who hitting 100x the numbers you are engaging. Its as clear as day that those who want the story to be between Boris and Corbyn, ignoring all who voted remain let alone independent have already won. You play by the rules, when the rules are clearly rigged against you, you lose - every time.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Unionist parties (DUP, UUP etc) in NI taking big hits. Down about 10%.

    Pro-reunification / remain (SF, SDLP) holding roughly steady, while neutral / remain (Alliance) are the main beneficiaries of the unionist losses net.

    https://2514bea3-91c5-415b-a4d7-2b7f18f64d4f.filesusr.com/ugd/024943_1cfc4208959e4a8f81f72011755dfea7.pdf


    NI is one to watch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. If unionist parties don't get a majority of MPs, then under the GFA, options for a reunification referendum will need to be considered.

      This already should be happening given unionist no long command a majority share of the vote, but December 12 could see the last electoral bastion fall if they lose their Westminster MP majority.

      Delete
    3. Agree, big shifts in NI. Well couple of seats here and there. And? You think London will care when the greater Leicester area swings the election on three times the number of seats in total to NI? GFA - in the scheme of things its a big 'meh' to most people in England below the age of 50.

      Delete
    4. It doesn't matter what England thinks, it's what the EU and the USA think.

      NI is heading for reunification whether England likes it or not, and once that domino starts to fall, the rest will follow.

      The union flag will cease to exist following an NI departure for a start; the red saltire will need to come off. Are they going to make a new flag at this late stage, what with Scotland half way out the door?

      I do have a worry Britain will use violence to try and hold itself together, at least for a short while. The saving grace is that it's a coward/bully, so would buckle quickly the moment you fought back. Take it from me as an Irishman; they just run away if you actually put up a fight. Chickenshit.

      Delete
  18. How many zombies believe we live in a democracy. What democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 2014 is often held up as an example of Scots being able to vote freely and fairly on being in the union.

    This is not true however, as England/Britain broke just about every rule on non-intervention in self determination.

    For example, broadcasting should have been handed over to Scotland following signing of the Edinburgh agreement. England/Britain controlling broadcasting was not in any way compatible with free democratic self-determination. It was no different to e.g. Putin taking control of Crimean broadcasting.

    Likewise, all English politicians should have been banned from appearing on TV in Scotland / campaigning here, other than in a purely personal capacity, Cameron etc included.

    It's the international norm to stay out of votes in other countries. Once the Edinburgh Agreement was signed, Scotland was no longer British for a while. It was in no mans land. Like a Jury out for decision. It should have been left alone to decide itself, free from any outside intervention.

    But the racist colonial hatred the Britain/the English government have for Scotland made sure that would never happen, just as the Irish and other former colonies experienced.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did not know my race was Scottish. Used to be North European.

      Delete
    2. You may not identify as Scottish, but the Scottish race exists, socially/culturally/politically/legally etc.

      It's nothing specifically to do with biology. Only people who believe biology is key to defining race think that, and they're well, rather unpleasant.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

      A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society...

      While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.

      Delete
    3. You seem to be inventing a race to suit yourself. Being born in Scotland does make you a Brit/Scot by nationality but you could have Brit/English parents. So does that make the child and parents different races! There is no difference between Scots, Irish, Welsh and English except for their geographical location.

      Delete
  20. Is it possible that because Swinson has a higher profile and on our tv screens more often that her constituents realise how bad she is and she loses her own seat?

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/voters-dislike-jo-swinson-the-more-they-see-her-poll-finds-ffjdlvc8k

    ReplyDelete