SCOT goes POP!

Thursday, October 10, 2024

James Cleverly's elimination is the perfect illustration of what can go catastrophically wrong if you try to "game the voting system"

Very long-term readers will recall that in past Holyrood elections, especially 2016, I cautioned at considerable length against the dangers of trying to "game the voting system". Prominent Green supporters and RISE both argued that it was perfectly possible and even necessary to game the system, because the SNP were supposedly "guaranteed" to win at least 65 constituency seats, and therefore any SNP votes on the list would be "wasted". It was claimed that SNP supporters had some kind of duty to abandon their first-choice party on the list and instead vote for a second-choice pro-indy party.

The point I made was that the list vote was actually the more important of the two votes, because the overall composition of parliament is roughly proportional to how people vote on the list ballot, not on the constituency ballot. Therefore, in general, people would be very foolish not to vote for their first-choice party on the list. If anything, it's the constituency ballot that lends itself to tactical voting, but if you try to play silly buggers on the list there's a severe danger of ending up with a perverse outcome. Yes, in theory it might be possible to game the system by voting for a second choice party on the list, but only in conditions that don't and can't exist in the real world - ie. 100% opinion poll accuracy, foreknowledge of how everybody else is going to vote, and certainty of exactly how many constituency seats that will translate into for each party.

This position of "vote for your first choice party on the list, don't listen to the siren voices telling you it's safe or necessary to abandon your first-choice party on the list" was cynically misrepresented for years by the usual suspects such as Kevin Williamson, Mike Small and Stewart Bremner as "James Kelly trying to suppress the Greens and RISE by pushing the 'both votes SNP' or 'SNP 1&2' line". And that really was an appallingly cynical misrepresentation, because they carried on doing it even after I repeatedly pointed out that I didn't use the phrases 'both votes SNP' or 'SNP 1&2', and that I actively objected to the latter because it misleadingly implies the constituency and list ballots are 'first preference' and 'second preference' votes. I also pointed out that my advice to anyone whose first choice party was the Greens was that they should vote Green on the list, which was plainly not consistent with the idea that I was some sort of "both votes SNP" drone. I simply objected to SNP supporters being duped into using their most important vote for another party - and I had no control over the fact that ultimately it was only SNP supporters who were being targeted by the "game the system" scam.

Although yesterday's bizarre outcome in the Conservative leadership election took place under a completely different voting system, it's nevertheless the perfect illustration of some of the points I used to make about what can go wrong if you try to game the system. What seems to have happened is that some James Cleverly supporters looked at the result of the penultimate ballot on Tuesday, concluded that their man was guaranteed to make the members' run-off, and that it was therefore safe and smart for them to vote for one of the other candidates. Some of them voted for their second-choice candidate to try to eliminate whoever they regarded as the most objectionable candidate, while others may even have voted for their least favourite candidate on the logic that this would make the members' run-off more winnable for Cleverly. The latter group must feel particularly idiotic now, because far too many of them attempted the tactic and ended up accidentally eliminating Cleverly from the race altogether. In other words, they assumed perfect foreknowledge of how everyone else was going to vote, and discovered the hard way that such foreknowledge simply isn't possible in the real world.

* * *

SCOT GOES POP FUNDRAISER 2024: I took a prolonged break from promoting the fundraiser during the general election period, but I'll have to make some serious progress over the coming days and weeks if the blog is to remain viable. Many thanks to everyone who has donated so far. Card donations can be made via the fundraiser page HERE, or direct donations can be made via Paypal. My Paypal email address is: jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Wednesday, October 9, 2024

The Tories opt for a hard right turn - as they almost always do

Well, if you needed any evidence that the betting markets are not some sort of predictive God, or that sudden movements on them are not proof that punters have inside knowledge, here it is (yet again). Robert Jenrick dropped like a stone on the markets earlier, probably on the logic that James Cleverly had enormous momentum behind him after his performance at the party conference (and in yesterday's ballot), and that Jenrick supporters would defect to Badenoch to stop Cleverly. That actually was a reasonable enough assumption, but it hasn't happened.

Kemi Badenoch 42
Robert Jenrick 41

James Cleverly 37

I can't say I'm sorry about Cleverly's elimination, because in a field of insufferable candidates I find him the most insufferable of the lot, but this does mean that whatever happens from here the Tories will once again be choosing a radical right leader, as they did so successfully with Liz Truss two years ago. Unless Badenoch stumbles badly, it seems highly likely that she'll be the winner, and I suppose the one consolation is that she's known for her gender critical views - but she's an extremist on many other issues.

On the ECHR issue, which I think might ultimately have a decisive role to play in Scotland becoming independent, Jenrick is committed to withdrawal and Badenoch says it "might" be necessary to withdraw.

I wonder if Allison Pearson's stroppy column threatening to defect to Reform UK if Cleverly won, and other contributions like hers, may have played a part in Tory MPs' mysterious last minute cold feet about Cleverly.

* * *

Tuesday, October 8, 2024

Crossover nears: Labour's GB-wide lead over the Tories cut to just one point

The batch of three GB-wide polls that I mentioned the other day were ominous for Starmer, because they showed Labour had lower percentage support than under Jeremy Corbyn in the crushing 2019 defeat. But at least they still showed Labour in the 30s, and with a cushion of sorts over the Tories. Neither of those things are true in the new More In Common poll, which has the worst results for Labour in years and years.

More In Common GB-wide poll:

Labour 29%

Conservatives 28%

Reform UK 19%

Liberal Democrats 11%

Greens 7%

SNP 2%

Now that we've seen a poll that is a "statistical tie", it's surely only a matter of time until some poll somewhere along the line shows an outright Tory lead. It's also possible that once the Tories get into the lead, they could stay there throughout much of the course of this parliament, building a clear expectation of a change of government in 2028 or 2029 - that would be in line with the logic of Labour having got off to such a record-breaking awful start in government. But clearly much will depend on whether the Tories elect a leader who the public regard as credible. And on that subject, the result of the penultimate MPs' ballot has just been announced -

James Cleverly 39

Robert Jenrick 31

Kemi Badenoch 30

Tom Tugendhat 20

I suggested on Sunday that Jenrick supporters might look at the ConHome poll, which showed that Badenoch was the only person who could beat Cleverly in the members' run-off, and reluctantly switch to Badenoch on a tactical basis. It looks like that may have happened to a very small extent, because Jenrick has lost two votes and Badenoch has gained three. There had been chatter that maybe Jenrick might "lend" some votes to Tugendhat to try to engineer a Jenrick v Tugendhat run-off, which the poll suggested was the only winnable scenario for Jenrick. But that was never going to work, because Jenrick simply didn't have enough votes in hand to get both himself and Tugendhat over the line.

So the only real question now is whether a few more Jenrick supporters might defect to Badenoch, because if they don't, Cleverly will probably sail to victory.

* * *

Monday, October 7, 2024

"We are SO disappointed in you, Keir and Anas": Scots voters say they expected Labour to behave better

As you may have seen, there's a GB-wide YouGov poll on the topic of how sleazy the new Labour government is, and unsurprisingly the verdict of voters is: VERY sleazy. The only sliver of consolation for Starmer's mob is that the previous Tory government is regarded (albeit by a slender margin) as even sleazier, but that doesn't apply to the two Prime Ministers - Keir Starmer is regarded as sleazier than Rishi Sunak, and that verdict is shared by the Scottish subsample (30% of Scottish respondents say Starmer is the sleazier of the two, 28% say Sunak).

If I was a Scottish Labour supporter, though, the result from the poll that would terrify me is the one about expectations: did voters expect Labour to be less sleazy than they turned out to be? In Scotland, there's a significantly greater percentage of people who simply didn't see the Labour sleaze coming -

Which of the following best describes how you feel the new Labour government has performed on the issue of upholding standards in public office? (All GB respondents)

I expected them to behave well but they have behaved worse than I expected: 38%

I expected them to behave badly but they have behaved better than I expected: 3%

I expected them to behave well and they have done: 15%

I expected them to behave badly and they have done: 25%

Which of the following best describes how you feel the new Labour government has performed on the issue of upholding standards in public office? (Respondents in Scotland only)

I expected them to behave well but they have behaved worse than I expected: 46%

I expected them to behave badly but they have behaved better than I expected: 3%

I expected them to behave well and they have done: 15%

I expected them to behave badly and they have done: 17%

Labour only won in Scotland by the narrow margin of 35% to 30% in July, and if that was at a point where the public had a much higher estimation of them, it's not hard to see why they now seem to have fallen behind the SNP. There also has to be a question mark over whether they can regain the advantage over the next couple of years, because once a good reputation is lost, it's very difficult to recover it.

* * *

Netanyahu fans on Twitter claim with a straight face that they might have voted Alba if it hadn't been for me. If I've single-handedly cost Alba the pro-genocide vote, my humblest apologies.

There are numerous ironies to my potential forthcoming expulsion from the Alba Party, which if it happens will ultimately be due to a blogpost I wrote in April arguing for democratisation of the party's internal structures - something which the leadership were seemingly more hellbent on thwarting than I could ever have dreamed possible. Many of those ironies relate to Alba's scathing reaction to disciplinary action that the SNP has taken against its own members - for example, Fergus Ewing's one-week suspension from the SNP parliamentary group. However unjustifiable the action against Mr Ewing was, and I do believe it was wholly wrong, a one-week suspension plainly pales into insignificance compared to the draconian action taken against numerous Alba members recently, including expulsions and lengthy suspensions. I myself have already been suspended from the party for longer than one week without even having faced a disciplinary hearing yet, and that's been purely at the arbitrary whim of one man - Chris McEleny.

However, as far as the ironies were concerned, nothing could have prepared me for what happened last night. I got into an exchange with Nicole Lampert, a London-based "journalist" specialising in pro-Israel propaganda and genocide apologism. She was going off on one about the fact that a pro-Palestinian counter-demonstration was audible during what she described as a "vigil" in Glasgow to "mourn the dead" of October 7th last year. "Give us 24 hours to mourn our dead in peace!" she histrionically demanded. My question to her was whether pro-Israel counter-protests should be banned for the next year to allow Palestinians to mourn their dead in peace, because of course almost every day for the next year will be the first anniversary of atrocities committed by Israel.

She then claimed that the pro-Palestinian protesters in Glasgow had been shouting anti-Semitic language, which left her on fairly weak ground, because she had already posted what she clearly regarded as a "damning video", and yet all that could be heard in that video were the familiar slogans "from the river to the sea" (which cannot be anti-Semitic because Netanyahu has used it at press conferences) and "free free Palestine" (which is perfectly consistent with support for Palestinian freedom in the context of a two-state solution). Oh no, that wasn't what she was talking about, she clarified. She was instead talking about anti-Semitic language that couldn't be heard in the video. She alleged that "Scottish Jews" had been called "genocidal scum and baby-killers". Did I think that was acceptable, she demanded to know.

I pointed out that she had supplied zero evidence of that language having been used, and also that even if she could find any evidence of it, she would have to establish that it was actually being directed at "Scottish Jews" rather than at the genocidal Israeli government - because of course if it was the latter, the language used would not only be acceptable but entirely accurate. That was the final straw for her - unable to grasp any distinction between Scottish Jews and Benjamin Netanyahu, she hilariously 'reported' me to Chris McEleny and Neale Hanvey, having noticed on my Twitter profile that I'm an elected member of three Alba committees. "You and I have our differences on Israel/Palestine but this guy claims to be one of your lot and SURELY THIS CAN'T BE ALBA POLICY!!!!" she screamed.

Desperately trying to keep a straight face, I explained the irony of her reporting me to someone who already has me suspended from the party, albeit for radically different reasons from the ones she might approve of. But over the next few hours, Ms Lampert was followed by at least four pro-Netanyahu accounts all claiming earnestly to have seriously considered voting Alba but declaring that THEY WOULD NEVER DO IT NOW BECAUSE OF THE VIEWS OF THAT BASTARD JAMES KELLY, THE ALBA COMMITTEE MEMBER. By that stage, I didn't even bother pointing out the comical irony of them saying that about someone who is suspended from the Alba Party, because there comes a point where all you can do is step back and quietly marvel at the sheer absurdity of a situation.

I must say I had no idea there was such a potential groundswell for Alba among pro-genocide voters (didn't they think to check party policy?), and if I've single-handedly managed to screw that up in what may be my last few days as a party member, what can I say. I'm so, so sorry, guys.

So were the pro-Palestinian protesters right to audibly disrupt the Glasgow "vigil"? I probably wouldn't have advised it, but there again you have to take into account what the true nature of the event was. Jackson Carlaw posted a photo of himself making a speech at the "vigil", in which he apparently argued strongly against any end to Israel's genocidal actions until the hostages are released. The fact that a right-wing politician was even invited to make such a speech suggests that there may have been an agenda that went a lot further than simply "mourning the dead".

Sunday, October 6, 2024

Tory MPs may have to act Cleverly to stop Cleverly

What I'm about to say will to some extent contradict my previous post, because looking at the latest Tory members' poll from ConHome, I really do struggle to see why Robert Jenrick is still favourite to win the leadership contest. (And as of this moment he is still favourite - I've just checked.)

There's going to be a head-to-head members' ballot between just two candidates, and regardless of whether he is up against Kemi Badenoch or James Cleverly, the poll shows Jenrick losing by a wide margin.

Jenrick v Badenoch

Kemi Badenoch 53%

Robert Jenrick 33%

Jenrick v Cleverly

James Cleverly 54%

Robert Jenrick 36%

The only candidate Jenrick would beat in a head-to-head is Tom Tugendhat, which is no use to him because Tugendhat is plainly not going to be his opponent. So precisely how is Jenrick supposed to emerge from this process as leader? In spite of what the betting odds say, I don't think he can, unless the poll is completely wrong.

The poll does keep alive the possibility of James Cleverly being stopped, though, because Badenoch would narrowly beat him in a head-to-head -

Badenoch v Cleverly:

Kemi Badenoch 48%

James Cleverly 42%

So logically what may now happen is that hard-right MPs might ditch Jenrick in favour of Badenoch in the remaining ballots to engineer a Badenoch v Cleverly run-off, which appears to be the only way Cleverly might yet lose.

Arguably Cleverly should currently be listed as favourite, with Badenoch as second favourite and Jenrick a distant third.

* * *

The message from Britain-wide opinion polls is consistent - Labour now have less support than they did in 2019 when they were heavily defeated under Jeremy Corbyn

The latest batch of three GB-wide opinion polls all have similar fieldwork dates, and are remarkably consistent in their findings -

Opinium (2nd-4th October 2024):

Labour 31%

Conservatives 24%

Reform UK 20%

Liberal Democrats 11%

Greens 8%

SNP 3%

BMG (2nd-3rd October 2024):

Labour 30%

Conservatives 25%

Reform UK 20%

Liberal Democrats 13%

Greens 7%

SNP 3%

Techne (2nd-3rd October 2024):

Labour 31%

Conservatives 23%

Reform UK 18%

Liberal Democrats 13%

Greens 7%

SNP 2%

It's safe to assume that all of these polls have been weighted by recalled vote from the general election in July, which makes it almost certain that the drop in Labour's support is real. The fieldwork was confined to Great Britain, ie. Northern Ireland was excluded, which means the baseline figure from July is not Labour's UK-wide vote of 34%, but their GB vote of 35%. So their vote is down by around 4% or 5%, which is a pretty significant drop after only three months.

Yes, they do remain ahead, and on paper they would probably win an election if it was held tomorrow, but I think there's quite a compelling argument that in an underlying sense they're already behind. It's incredibly difficult to believe that in four or five years' time they'd be able to win a general election on their current level of support, which is for example lower than the 33% they took in GB under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership in the crushing defeat of 2019. The combined Tory/Reform UK vote ranges between 41% and 45% in these three polls, and if that somehow consolidates behind a single bloc over the coming years, even at this stage Labour look like toast.

But will it consolidate? There was a comparable situation at the 1983 election, when the Tories won an artificially large landslide thanks to a near even split in the opposition vote between Labour and the SDP-Liberal Alliance. Most people probably assumed at the time that the division would resolve itself over the course of four or five years, but it didn't really - in 1987 Labour clawed back a little bit of support from the Alliance but nowhere near enough. So there are no guarantees, but with Robert Jenrick remaining the clear favourite in the Tory leadership contest, and with Jenrick's platform so closely mimicking that of Reform, there does appear to be a clear route-map towards a reunited right-wing vote. Maybe Jenrick and Farage will agree an electoral pact, or maybe there won't even be a need for that because Reform UK's current supporters will decide Jenrick is good enough to be getting on with and will swing behind the Tories.

The relevance for Scotland, of course, is that there could within a couple of years be a clear expectation of a hard-right government committed to withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights. That could start to make the SNP's offer of independence look a lot more attractive than Labour's meaningless waffle about "the change that Scotland needs".

* * *

Friday, October 4, 2024

More analysis of the Dundee by-elections

Just a quick note to let you know I've written a short analysis piece for The National about the SNP's victories in yesterday's two Dundee by-elections - you can read it HERE.

Dundee DEVASTATION for Sarwar as SNP humiliate Labour TWICE in by-election double-header - they don't call it Bash Street for nothing

Strathmartine by-election result, first preferences (3rd October 2024):

SNP 35.0% (-10.3)

Liberal Democrats 26.9% (+8.2)

Labour 26.9% (+4.0)

Conservatives 4.2% (-1.7)

Greens 3.6% (+0.2)

TUSC 3.4% (+2.7)

Lochee by-election result, first preferences (3rd October 2024):

SNP 37.3% (-5.9)

Labour 35.6% (-0.2)

Conservatives 6.8% (-1.6)

Alba 5.5% (+2.4)

Greens 5.5% (+1.3)

Liberal Democrats 4.8% (+1.7)

Workers Party of Britain 4.4% (n/a)

Local by-elections are often mainly about symbolism and momentum, but these two really did matter because the SNP's overall majority on Dundee City Council was at stake - and has survived. In fact Lochee is technically a gain from Labour, although the SNP were defending a lead in both wards from last time around. The SNP's 1.7% lead on first preferences in Lochee was tight enough that Labour could potentially have won with transfers from other unionist parties - the combined vote for the Tories, the Lib Dems and the Workers Party exceeded the combined vote for the Greens and Alba. So it's intriguing that it didn't happen, and it'll be interesting to find out why from the detailed numbers.

Can the SNP still be considered to have had good results even though their vote fell? Yes. The percentage changes are measured from the 2022 local elections, when the SNP's national lead over Labour in the popular vote was 12.3%. The average swing from SNP to Labour in the two by-elections was 5%, which would leave the SNP about two points ahead nationally. That's not too shabby only a few weeks after finishing five points behind Labour at the general election. In practice it's probably even better than it appears, because the SNP's vote share in local elections is often on the low side compared to other elections.

For the second week in a row, Alba have had an OK-ish result in a by-election, although I suspect that's mainly about improved organisation and a more effective get-out-the-vote effort rather than any increase in Alba's underlying national support, which probably remains at roughly the very familiar 2% level. Indeed, there's a potential danger in getting half-decent results in low-turnout local by-elections, because Alex Salmond was very quick last week to suggest that Alba's 6% showing in Perth meant that they were on 6% across Scotland and were therefore on course for list seats. That's plainly not the case, but many Alba members are all too hungry to believe in that kind of statement. If the party effectively hypnotises itself into thinking a breakthrough is just around the corner, the deep-seated problems that in practice will prevent Alba from winning any list seats at all may not be tackled or resolved.

And it can't go without note that Lochee is yet another election in which the Workers Party of Britain, for which Craig Murray stood at the general election, put up a candidate directly against the Alba Party, of which to the best of my knowledge Craig Murray is also still a member. Let me reiterate yet again that this is not a jibe against Craig personally, and in fact I have the highest admiration for both his politics and his personal courage. The point is about Alba itself. Craig has driven a coach and horses through the most important commandment in the Alba rule-book by standing for a party in direct competition with Alba. And yet somehow it's as if that never happened - Craig's membership remains untouched and no disciplinary action has been taken against him. By contrast, my own Alba membership is currently arbitrarily suspended on the whim of one man (Chris McEleny, the non-elected General Secretary), which is preventing me from exercising my right as a paid-up party member to stand in internal elections. Later this month, I will face a so-called "disciplinary" hearing in which I could be expelled from the party altogether for essentially two things - a) using my elected position on an internal Alba working group to push for democratisation of the party's internal structures in a way that the leadership apparently has no intention of tolerating, and b) making certain limited criticisms of the leadership in posts on this blog. I am far from being the first member to face this kind of treatment - other expulsions and lengthy suspensions have already occurred.

The double-standard, and the difference of treatment for the favoured and the unfavoured, is blatant. It's overwhelming proof of a disciplinary machinery that is not functioning as advertised, but is instead being shamelessly abused as a tool to suppress dissent and deter the free expression of views within the party. I will be taking a stand at the disciplinary hearing and at the likely subsequent appeal hearing, because frankly Scotland has no need of a carbon-copy of the authoritarian party that expelled Grouse Beater for no good reason, that suspended Neale Hanvey for no good reason, and that bullied Denise Findlay into a public resignation for no good reason. Alba needs to be a lot, lot better than that, otherwise what is the point of it being there?

Thursday, October 3, 2024

Britain's "Little Empire of Leftovers" is gradually breaking up - and it would be naive of unionists to think that Scotland is immune to the process

I suspect that when Hong Kong reverted to Chinese sovereignty in 1997, the UK assumed that its remaining "Little Empire of Leftovers" would be its to keep in perpetuity, because the territories that were left had either fiercely pro-British populations (as in the case of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar), or were too geographically remote for other countries to plausibly stake a claim on them and too small to be plausible contenders for full independence (as in the case of Pitcairn). Well, the handing over of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, albeit with all the imperfections of a 99-year lease back to the UK and US of Diego Garcia, is a massive jolt to that complacency, because the UK has been forced to this point by a brilliant diplomatic campaign by the government of Mauritius. It's entirely possible to see how that could be a model for picking off some of the other UK overseas dependencies.

Next in line is surely Cyprus, which is the most comparable to the Chagos situation, because the UK simply decided to confiscate 4% of Cypriot territory as a condition for the country becoming independent. The military bases on that retained territory have seemingly been used recently to assist Israel in its genocidal campaign in Gaza. The precedent of Diego Garcia surely means that those bases must revert to Cypriot sovereignty and any continued UK military presence there would only be acceptable as the result of an agreed settlement.

I've never taken the view that Spain has a legitimate claim on Gibraltar or that Argentina has a legitimate claim on the Falklands. Both territories have stable populations which have exactly the same right to self-determination as the people of Scotland, and they have exercised that right by decisively rejecting Spanish and Argentinian rule. But I do think in time those populations, probably starting with Gibraltar, may come to see the value of essentially keeping their current system but changing the title deeds, ie. becoming nominally independent but entering into a free association agreement with the UK to allow London to continue controlling their foreign affairs and defence. That would demonstrate to the world that decolonisation has occurred and make them masters of their own house. In the case of Gibraltar it would require Spanish cooperation to circumvent the provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht, but one day there might be a Spanish government with the foresight to realise that decolonisation of Gibraltar is actually in Spanish interests.

In the case of the small Caribbean dependencies, the increasing development of pan-Caribbean governance structures may eventually provide the architecture that would make it viable to shake off the London link.

Meanwhile, there are also broader "Little Empires", covering the independent states where King Charles is still monarch, or where the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council still has jurisdiction as the final court of appeal. Both of those empires are continuing to contract, with Barbados recently becoming a republic, and Saint Lucia becoming the latest country to abolish Privy Council jurisdiction last year. It's surely only a matter of time before Australia and Jamaica adopt home-grown heads of state, which will probably lead to others following their example.

The tide of history is only moving in one direction, and it would be naive of unionists to think Scotland is immune to it. I remember in my childhood hearing Alan Whicker talk about the upcoming Hong Kong handover. He said "when the sun sets on the British Empire, it'll set over Kowloon Harbour". But actually when it really sets, it may be over the cliffs of St Kilda.

* * *