Ironically, the success of the unusual coalition model from the Greens' point of view probably means it will never be repeated

It now looks like Fianna Fáil will top the first preference vote in the Irish general election, despite the exit poll last night putting them third.  Some people are claiming that means the exit poll was a "dud", but that's pushing it a bit - the top three parties were all within 1.6 percentage points of each other in the exit poll, so due to the in-built margin of error, the poll could still have been "right" no matter which of the three came out on top.

On one point the exit poll certainly wasn't misleading - the Green party, which was the junior partner in the outgoing coalition government, is taking a hammering.  This seems to be a recurring pattern for the Irish Greens every time they join a government, and is also a common phenomenon for junior coalition partners across Europe.  What tends to happen is that people who are satisfied with a government gravitate towards voting for the senior coalition partners at the subsequent election (those parties are "the government" in voters' eyes), while those unhappy with the government will be angry with the junior coalition partners for compromising on their principles.

Strangely, though, the Scottish Greens seemed to be immune to that general rule - they took part in a government for almost three years, did some very controversial things, and yet their popularity didn't dip at all.  If anything, it was the SNP who took a hammering for the concessions they made to the Greens, rather than vice versa.  That can be explained by the unusual model of coalition that was adopted, with the Greens taking ministerial roles but not in the Cabinet, and with a number of policy areas excluded from the deal.  That allowed the Greens to pose as either a government party or an opposition party depending on what suited them at any given moment.  In her recent controversial article, Kezia Dugdale said "OK, it technically wasn't a coalition", but actually the opposite is true - it technically was a coalition, but the Greens somehow managed to hypnotise everyone into pretending that it wasn't.

Ironically, the sheer effectiveness of the deal from a Green point of view probably means that the model used will never be repeated - any potential senior coalition partner will be wary and will insist that the junior partner is either all in or all out.

A slight surprise in Irish exit poll as Sinn Féin are predicted to top the first preference vote again

It suddenly occurred to me a few minutes ago that I could listen live to the drama of the Irish general election exit poll reveal on RTE Radio, and although there wasn't a huge shock, there was a slight surprise, because Sinn Féin are predicted to top the first preference vote for a second time in a row - albeit that prediction is within the margin of error, because Sinn Féin are just 0.1% ahead of Fine Gael, with Fianna Fáil around 1.5% further back in third.

Bear in mind that Sinn Féin are a bit less transfer-friendly than the other two main parties, so even a slight lead in the popular vote may translate into them being slightly behind in terms of seats.  But at the very least it looks like they'll retain rough parity with the traditional big two.

For most of the last five years, Sinn Féin have had a healthy lead in the polls, and some Scottish independence supporters have looked at that as a back door route by which we might make progress - ie. a Sinn Féin led government might take office in the Republic and demand an early referendum on Irish unity.  That prospect fell away a few months ago when Sinn Féin support dramatically collapsed and they fell to a poor third place.  I'm not sure why that happened - maybe they overplayed their hand on identity politics and lost touch with what voters were really looking for from them.  But they've since rallied, and ended up with a middling result which is unlikely to get them into power right now, but will rescue their credibility and keep the flame burning for future years.

Sinn Féin 21.1%

Fine Gael 21.0%
Fianna Fáil 19.5%

Social Democrats 5.8%
Labour 5.0%
Greens 4.0%
Aontú 3.6%
People Before Profit - Solidarity 3.1%
Independent Ireland 2.2%
Others 1.9%
Independents 12.7%

Richard Tice's statement undoubtedly makes a Labour minority government in Scotland more likely - but at what cost to Labour?

Thanks to Yesindyref2 on the previous thread for pointing me in the direction of an article suggesting Reform UK's Richard Tice has said his party would vote for Anas Sarwar to be First Minister after the next Holyrood election.  Assuming he's been reported accurately, and assuming he wasn't going rogue by saying the first thing that popped into his head, this is a rare example of a comment by an opposition politician that really does change things, because it makes it significantly more likely that Sarwar will become First Minister.  Although most polls recently have shown the SNP on course to remain the largest single party, they have also mostly suggested that Labour, the Tories, the Lib Dems and Reform UK would have a majority between them, so if Reform UK are on board for Sarwar, the only way that John Swinney (or Kate Forbes, or whoever) would be able to win the First Minister vote would be if the Tories and/or the Lib Dems abstained, or if Sarwar didn't stand at all.

But nominally becoming First Minister is only half the battle for Sarwar - other than adding a bit of glitter to his CV, it won't really count for much if he's then brought down within a few weeks or months.  What Tice has said is really quite odd, because it reduces Reform's leverage in any post-election negotiations - it's effectively saying they will install a Labour government without any concessions from Labour at all, presumably as a virtue-signalling demonstration of British Nationalist ultra-purity.  But the snag is that they're bound to hold Sarwar hostage after installing him on specific policy matters, so either Sarwar would gain a damaging reputation for being Farage's Puppet, or he would stand his ground and lose vote after vote, perhaps leaving his government looking non-viable, with the only remaining choices being to hand over to the SNP (who might have the strongest case if they're the largest single party) or to accept the inevitability of a re-run of the election.

And as Yesindyref2 pointed out, Tice's statement may ultimately be a problem for Reform UK too, because if it becomes widely understood that "a vote for Reform is a vote for Labour", some of the voters who have switched direct from SNP to Reform may start to have second thoughts.  That could increase the chances of the pro-independence majority at Holyrood being rescued in 2026 against all the odds.

Another by-election setback for Labour - they finish just TWO VOTES ahead of SNP in West Fife, with the average swing in yesterday's two elections pointing to a national SNP lead of 13 or 14 percentage points

West Fife & Coastal Villages by-election result on first preference votes (28th November 2024)

Labour 33.2% (+0.7)
SNP 33.2% (-2.7)
Conservatives 16.1% (-1.0)
Liberal Democrats 8.6% (+1.9)
Greens 4.6% (+0.5)
Independent - Morton 2.4% (n/a)
Scottish Family Party 2.0% (n/a)

On raw votes, Labour topped the first preference poll by just two votes (881 to 879) - there's no way they would have been expecting it to be that tight.  The swing from SNP to Labour was a miniscule 1.7%, which remember is measured from the baseline of the 2022 local elections, when the SNP were still more than 12 percentage points ahead of Labour nationally.  So if the by-election result is extrapolated nationally, it would point to an SNP lead over Labour of around nine points.

As you'll have seen, there was actually a swing to the SNP in the other by-election yesterday.  If the two swings are averaged, they come to a 0.6% swing to the SNP, which would suggest that the SNP are around thirteen or fourteen points ahead of Labour nationally.

Labour stunned as Kilpatrick by-election produces swing of almost 3% *to the SNP* - it's a Labour hold, but points to a large SNP national lead

As I pointed out yesterday, both of the by-elections taking place looked almost certain to be Labour holds, because both wards were particularly favourable for Labour in 2022, at a time when the SNP were still miles ahead of Labour nationally.  Well, Labour have indeed held on in Kilpatrick, but the details of the result do not bode well for them at all.

Kilpatrick by-election result on first preference votes (28th November 2024)

Labour 42.7% (-13.4)
SNP 30.3% (-7.7)
Reform UK 10.4% (n/a)

Conservatives 5.7% (-0.2)
Greens 4.3% (n/a)
Liberal Democrats 3.7% (n/a)

Scottish Family Party 1.5% (n/a)

Communists 1.4% (n/a)

That's a swing from Labour to the SNP of about 2.9% - and remember the swing is supposed to be the other way around at the moment, because the baseline in local by-elections is the 2022 result, not July 2024.  Assuming a uniform swing, that would put the SNP ahead nationally by a stonking 18 percentage points.

Someone said on the previous thread that Scotland is not immune to Reform UK's charms - well, that's clearly true, and Reform are certainly doing better in Scotland in recent weeks than at one time seemed remotely possible (remember what a busted flush they looked like after Michelle Ballantyne came nowhere near to retaining her Holyrood seat).  But it's worth stressing that Reform's average vote share in recent Scottish by-elections is only around half the vote they are typically recording in GB-wide polls.  So Scotland is still far from being Farage's most fertile territory.

Britain-wide Find Out Now poll suggests Labour have lost their lead - and are in severe danger of slipping to THIRD

GB-wide voting intentions for the next general election (Find Out Now):

Conservatives 27%

Labour 25%

Reform UK 22%

Liberal Democrats 12%

Greens 9%

SNP 3%

This of course isn't the first opinion poll since the general election to show the Tories in the lead - across all firms, it's actually the fourth, and there was also another one that had the Tories and Labour exactly level.  But what we haven't seen before is a poll that combines Labour in second place with a very small gap between themselves and Reform UK, opening up the possibility that they could soon slip to third place.

It may seem paradoxical that both the Tories and Reform UK are prospering at the same time, because under Kemi Badenoch, the Tories have never before converged so much with Reform UK in policy terms.  But remember that 27% isn't actually a good showing for the Tories - it's only enough to put them in the lead because Labour are polling so catastrophically.

As I've said before, an extremist right-wing government won't need to actually be elected before the likely prospect of an extremist right-wing government starts to move the dial of the constitutional debate in Scotland. How do unionists sell a country that may soon have a Prime Minister Badenoch? How do they sell a country that might even soon have a Prime Minister Farage, or a Deputy Prime Minister Farage?

It's an obvious truth but an important one: if the SNP reverse Labour's winter fuel allowance cuts, it's the SNP who will get the credit at the next election

80% of the time I disagree with Andy Maciver's centrist, affluent take on Scottish politics, but his verdict on the Daily Record story suggesting the SNP will reverse London Labour's cut in winter fuel allowance chimes with the way I've been thinking recently - 

"Labour will learn the hard way that Westminster governments don’t get the electoral credit for Barnett consequentials…"

I cannot understand what Sarwar's thinking was in announcing that a Scottish Labour government would reverse its own party's cuts, because once people stopped laughing at the preposterous "vote Labour to stop Labour" messaging, there was only ever going to be one reliable effect.  The SNP couldn't allow themselves to be outflanked, so if they hadn't already been planning to reverse the cut themselves, Sarwar's stunt guaranteed that they would do so, and we knew that it was probably affordable due to the Barnett consequentials generated by the Budget's spending increases in England.

And now the SNP will get the sole credit.  In the real world, people don't say "oh, this is thanks to #PressureFromScottishLabour", and nor do they give credit to London Labour for incidentally providing the funds necessary to reverse a cruel cut that London Labour made in the first place and needn't have done.

*  *  *

Over the last few weeks, I have been causing fury in certain quarters by pointing out that Labour's string of local by-election wins in Scotland is not what it superficially seems, because they have taken place mostly in wards that are unusually favourable for Labour - a lot of them have been wards where Labour won the popular vote in 2022, at a time when the SNP were well ahead nationally.  The swing to Labour has generally been small enough to suggest an ongoing SNP national lead, perhaps even quite a substantial one.

In a state of exasperation, someone said to me the other day: "OK, if that's the case, where are all the wards that the SNP would be expected to win?"  Well, there are two more by-elections taking place today, and I've checked the wards in question and it's a continuation of the same story: both wards were unusually favourable for Labour in 2022 at a time when Labour were well behind the SNP nationally.  So doubtless Labour will easily win both by-elections, and certain people will once again refuse to accept that such results can be anything other than stonkingly wonderful for Labour, but that's the reality.  The numbers don't lie.  Sometimes weird patterns do just occur randomly and lots of Labour-friendly wards come up for election all at once.

Dugdale may want Labour to form a coalition with the SNP, but it's highly unlikely Sarwar would ever entertain that prospect

Apologies for disappearing for a few days - it was mainly because I spent much of Monday composing my written submission in response to the so-called "disciplinary" action that Chris McEleny has taken against me, and that will at long last be heard by Alba's Disciplinary Committee next Thursday evening.  It took me about five or six hours to write it, so I was still mentally exhausted yesterday!  For months now, I've had to live with the very real possibility that Mr McEleny will succeed in persuading the Disciplinary Committee to expel me from the party - because if that is his aim (as I suspect it is), I know all too well that he'll be pushing at an open door due to the committee's rock-solid leadership-loyalist majority.  Since the early part of this year, the committee has effectively functioned solely as a rubberstamp for Mr McEleny's deepest desires, which have had nothing to do with punishing genuine wrongdoing by Alba members, but have been almost exclusively about weaponising the party's disciplinary machinery against anyone who has irritated or angered the leadership.  Those who have drawn attention to the disturbingly irregular nature of last year's internal Alba elections have been a particular target for the leadership's campaign of revenge.  In my own case, I seem to be in the firing line mainly because of the strong stand I've been taking in favour of democratisation of the party.  That suspicion is not allayed by the almost comically threadbare nature of the official charge sheet against me - I'm effectively facing trial-by-vagueness, or trial-by-please-someone-fill-in-the-blanks-because-we-can't-actually-think-of-a-plausible-official-reason-for-expelling-this-guy.

So I've had plenty of time to ponder which political party I would apply to join (or to try to help to set up) if Alba do expel me next week - I very much hope it doesn't come to that, but I want to have a contingency plan in place in case it does.  Unfortunately it's not a straightforward decision - there are pros and cons attached to each option.  But Kezia Dugdale's latest controversial column for the Courier, in which she argues for an SNP-Labour coalition government after 2026, may flag up one of the strongest arguments in favour of applying to rejoin the SNP.  Although the SNP leadership would be under no obligation to consult party members on forming a new coalition, it would be very difficult for them not to do so, due to the precedent set by the 2021 consultation on entering into the ill-fated coalition with the Greens.  OK, that consultation was an example of rule-by-managed-plebiscite, because from memory it produced an almost North Korean/Alba-style 80%+ vote in favour of coalition.  But I suspect there would be a much more competitive vote if the proposition was coalition with a unionist party.  It goes without saying that if I was an SNP member I would vote against coalition with Labour, except in the very unlikely circumstances that Labour made substantive concessions on progress towards independence.

I remain highly sceptical about whether such a coalition will even be seriously discussed after the 2026 election, let alone come into being.  The only reason we have to treat Ms Dugdale's column with a touch of seriousness is that she's married to Jenny Gilruth, the SNP Government's Education Secretary, and it's therefore possible that Ms Gilruth may share her views.  But not necessarily - if the two of them agreed about absolutely everything they would be members of the same party.  And I certainly see no evidence that Ms Dugdale's views are shared by the Labour leadership - if anything her column seems to be a despairing plea for her own former party to change its attitude.  The overwhelming likelihood is that Anas Sarwar will be looking for one of two outcomes in 2026 - either a) to form an exclusively unionist coalition government with himself as First Minister, or b) to become the hardline Brit Nat opposition to a significantly weakened SNP minority government.

Why is it that every time the SNP pointlessly chuck away a precious parliamentary seat, they get patted on the back as if they've just done something really sensible and mature?

When it emerged that Stephen Flynn wanted to challenge a sitting SNP MSP for a place in Holyrood, but also wanted to retain his Westminster seat until the next general election if he was successful, I made the point that the one thing the SNP needed to avoid at all costs was a needless Westminster by-election in Aberdeen South.  In other words, there had to be one of two outcomes: either a) Flynn had to be persuaded to abandon his plan to switch to Holyrood and instead rededicate himself to his important role as leader of the fourth largest group in the Commons (by far the most preferable option), or b) his critics had to accept his temporary dual mandate through gritted teeth.

The SNP making strategic mis-steps has become such an established pattern in recent years that it's no great surprise to me that after only a few short days they've managed to end up with precisely the worst-case scenario I warned against.  They've persuaded Flynn to abandon his plan to have a dual mandate, but not to abandon his plan to switch to Holyrood.  That makes a by-election almost inevitable - unless of course Flynn fails in his bid for Holyrood selection.  But that seems highly unlikely, because we all know what this is really about - the leadership faction want Flynn in Holyrood so he can be the next leader.  I was asked last night how long I thought John Swinney would stay on as leader, and I said "at least two more years, because the ruling faction want him to hang on until they can replace him with Stephen Flynn, preventing Kate Forbes from becoming First Minister is the one thing they care about above all else".  And the person I was speaking to gave me a look of total bafflement and said "WHY?"  I had to think about that for a moment, but eventually I said "well, because she's an evangelical Christian, and because she has certain private views about abortion...", and then I sort of tailed off and thought to myself "yeah, this doesn't really make any sense, does it?"  The SNP have got to stop tearing their own house down for factional reasons.

What does surprise me, although it probably shouldn't, is that having needlessly got themselves into this by-election mess, the SNP are receiving a big pat on the back from certain sections of the independence movement.  "Stephen Flynn got this one wrong, but the important thing is he's accepted that and put things right."  Well, no, actually, he's now got things even more wrong than before.  Far, far more wrong.  It reminds me of when prominent independence supporters both inside and outside the SNP were enthusiastically urging people in Rutherglen to sign the recall petition against Margaret Ferrier.  "Here's a helpful map showing you where you can sign, and don't forget to wrap up warm, now!"  Those sterling "efforts" led to a landmark by-election gain for Labour, which in turn generated momentum that led to the SNP's defeat at the general election.

Make no mistake - if the SNP stupidly bring about a by-election in Aberdeen South, they're likely to lose it and see their representation in the Commons cut from nine seats to eight.  It's not a natural SNP constituency.  Flynn only held it in July because the unionist vote was split down the middle, but in a by-election context it's likely that unionist voters would coalesce more behind one party, possibly the Tories.  Heaven only knows what momentum that might generate and what the long-term consequences might be.

One of the many plus points of the ICC ruling is that it's exposed Stephen Daisley as an unhinged extremist who would happily tear down the entire international system just to prevent a war criminal he admires from facing justice

Part of Stephen Daisley's basic schtick is to present himself (in spite of his rather extreme right-wing views on many topics) as the voice of mainstream common sense and to make a great show of being amused by supposedly 'unsensible' people.  For example, when Nicola Sturgeon was at the height of her powers and SNP members and SNP-supporting commentators were tending to get a bit carried away and to show her excessive adulation, he wasn't shy about using the ironic #NotACult hashtag.  He regarded it as a great "hoot" that he unexpectedly got to see the "unelectable" Left in charge of the Labour party for a few years, having been too young to remember the last time around in the early 80s (although it's safe to assume he must have been shocked to his core that the 2017 general election result didn't resemble the 1983 result in the way he imagined was absolutely inevitable).  And of course he's a tremendous fan of lecturing the SNP on how they should concentrate on "the day job" and the delivery of public services, rather than constitutional obsessions that real people supposedly don't care about.

So it really is a rare old treat to see how the issuing of arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant has led him to instantly lose the plot utterly, and very visibly turn into exactly the sort of destructive ideological hothead that he professes to have such disdain for.  Even more delicious is that he seems gloriously unaware of what he's doing and how ridiculous it's making him look.  No, of course he doesn't want any sort of disproportionate reaction against the world's highest court for taking one decision he personally dislikes, he just wants it destroyed completely, if necessary by means of a US military invasion of the Netherlands.  He wants Trump's America to go full rogue state (not that they'll need much encouragement on that score) by freezing the ICC's bank accounts, preventing its staff from travelling, and forcing US allies to choose between rogue US leadership and the rule of international law.  In short, Daisley quite cheerfully wants to bring the whole international system crashing down because of his single-minded determination that two wanted war criminals must go free at all costs.

In defence of this barking mad prospectus, he runs through the stock points of pro-Israeli gaslighting - ie. Israel doesn't deliberately target civilians, it always issues warnings, it's responsible for lavish amounts of humanitarian aid reaching Palestinian civilians who are frankly living as princes.  It's almost pointless to try to take issue with such nonsense, because the entire purpose of Israel preventing journalists from reporting inside Gaza is to stop conclusive proof emerging that civilians are being targeted for intentional and industrial-scale racial extermination.  That conclusive proof has come out anyway, but Daisley and his ilk can pretend not to see it because it comes from the 'wrong' sources.  

But on one point he's just objectively and irrefutably wrong.

"The ICC has no jurisdiction over Israel, which is not a party to the Rome Statute."

The ICC is not claiming jurisdiction over Israel.  Its relevant jurisdiction is over the Palestinian territories, which is the geographical location where Israel has committed the war crimes.  

"A state can invite the court to rule on a matter related to its territory and volunteer to accept its jurisdiction, which the Palestinian Authority has done as part of a long-term strategy to gain a foothold in international bodies and use it to wage diplomatic warfare against Israel. However, the Palestinian Authority is not a state and exercises no meaningful sovereignty over Gaza, which is run by Hamas. The ICC has involved itself because doing so suits its institutional politics and preferences."

The Palestinian Authority may not be a state, but the State of Palestine is very much a state - the clue is helpfully contained within the name.  What the hell is a state if not an entity that declares itself to be a state within defined geographical boundaries and attracts international recognition for its declaration? The State of Palestine is currently recognised by 146 of the 193 member states of the UN, or just over three-quarters.  That number includes several western countries including Sweden, Spain, Norway and Ireland.  It doesn't matter a damn that there isn't yet 100% recognition, because a great many other countries are not universally recognised either.  Israel itself, for example, is not recognised by 28 UN states, around 15% of the total.  Some countries still do not recognise the People's Republic of China because they prefer to have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, but no-one would seriously suggest that this means China is not a sovereign nation.

The UN finally accepted the State of Palestine as a non-member observer state in 2012, which put its status as a state beyond all dispute, and allowed Palestine to become a full member of many other international organisations including the International Criminal Court.  Palestine has not, as Daisley claims, "invited" the court to rule and "volunteered to accept its jurisdiction".  Palestine is simply a state party to the ICC on exactly the same basis as the UK and over 100 other countries, and the ICC's jurisdiction is therefore automatic within Palestine's sovereign territory.  The ICC is not "involving itself" due to its "institutional preferences", but because it is compelled to be involved by the terms of its founding treaty, which gives the citizens of all states parties, including the State of Palestine, exactly the same protections as each other.

Nor does the fact that the territory of the State of Palestine is illegally occupied by a neighbouring country detract from the rights and responsibilities of the government of the State of Palestine in international bodies.  If that was the case, the fact that 10% of the territory of Ukraine is occupied by Russia would put at risk Ukraine's membership of the UN, but that would be plainly ridiculous.  Daisley's subtext is that Israel's occupation of Palestine gives Israel a veto on Palestinian statehood, rather as if Israeli rule in the West Bank and Gaza were an international "mandate" like the one Britain used to enjoy in the same region.  But of course the opposite is true - numerous UN resolutions dating back to the 1960s stress that Israel has no legitimate right to be in the West Bank and Gaza and should leave immediately.

On one point I do half-agree with Daisley, though - it might be a good thing in the long run if Trump forces countries to make a straight choice between the US and the international system, because many US allies will choose the international system, no matter how painful they find it to be faced with such a dilemma.  We've already seen that with the likes of Canada.  Only a week ago, Trudeau was shamefully parroting Israeli propaganda about a "pogrom in Amsterdam", presumably because the US told him to, but as soon as the ICC actually issued the arrest warrants, there was no ambiguity - Trudeau swiftly made clear that Canada would abide by its international obligations and arrest Netanyahu if he set foot on Canadian soil.

Surely the Eurovision Song Contest (and FIFA, etc) have got to suspend Israel until such time as a new government is formed that isn't led by a wanted war criminal. That oughtn't be a controversial point.

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 23, 2024