What seems like a billion years ago (but in fact it was only a few months), there used to be this crazy notion that Ruth Davidson might be the next Prime Minister. Bookies used to list her as a serious contender. When her fans began to come to terms with the fact that wasn't going to happen, we started to hear about how she was instead going to be the "kingmaker". Well, today has exploded that myth in rather comical fashion. Having failed to persuade her own Scottish Tory MPs to follow her directions, her preferred candidate Savid Javid was easily eliminated at lunchtime. She then immediately transferred her support to Michael Gove, with sources briefing that this was an opportunity for the Scottish Tory leadership to exercise some influence. Well, if there was any influence, it somehow managed to drop Michael Gove down a place from second to third, meaning he was eliminated as well.
Having two endorsements blow up in her face in the space of one day is really quite an achievement for Ruth, and I suspect up-and-coming Tory hopefuls will be asking her to keep her distance from now on. Let's hear no more nonsense from the media about how she has influence or leverage in the corridors of power - she clearly has none whatsoever. Scottish voters should be under no illusions that if they vote Tory in a general election, they're voting for the Westminster Tory party in all its ugliness, and not for Ruth Davidson.
Conservative party leadership election (final ballot of MPs):
Boris Johnson 160
Jeremy Hunt 77
Michael Gove 75
Michael Gove eliminated, Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt proceed to members' ballot.
What does this mean for us? Well, in one sense it might be just as well to see the back of Gove. Even in a contest in which all the candidates were frantically outbidding each other on who was going to crack down the hardest on Scottish democracy, Gove stood out as the most obsessed with "our precious, precious Union", which may well be why Davidson belatedly backed him. Apparently he had been floating some madcap plan to get a "Union Guarantee" written into international law, whatever that might mean. It's also possible that having a Tory leader with a Scottish accent might have been of some marginal help to the party in defending their north-east seats against the SNP, so at least that danger has been averted.
However, I do believe that having Boris in Number 10 is going to be a double-edged sword for the SNP. He'd probably make it easier for Yes to win an independence referendum, but in the short term, I suspect he'll win back votes from the Brexit Party in Scotland as much as anywhere else, which will make it less challenging for the Scottish Tories to retain at least some of their seats.
Johnson v Gove in the members' ballot would have sent a powerful message to the EU, with the only question being which of the two leading members of the Leave campaign was going to be in charge during the Brexit endgame. As it is, we have a Leaver versus a Remainer - but that may not make a whole lot of difference, because if Hunt's words can be taken at face value, he's more open to the possibility of No Deal than Theresa May was.
* * *
2019 Scot Goes Pop Fundraiser: This is Day 21 of the fundraiser, and so far £7555 has been raised. That's 89% of the way towards the target figure of £8500. A million thanks to everyone who has donated so far, and I'm also extremely grateful to all the people who have left a kind comment with their donation. You can visit the fundraising page HERE.
Showing posts with label Conservative leadership election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservative leadership election. Show all posts
Thursday, June 20, 2019
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
A tentative forecast for the second round of the Tory leadership contest
As my 2016 track record will bear witness to, ballots of Tory MPs are notoriously hard to predict. The classic example was Margaret Thatcher topping the first ballot in 1975 when Edward Heath was expected to easily see off her challenge. More recently, there was the drama of 1997, when William Hague defied expectations of a virtual dead heat on the final ballot to defeat Kenneth Clarke comfortably, and 2001, when ruthlessly effective tactical voting robbed the frontrunner Michael Portillo of his place in the members' ballot by a single vote.
Nevertheless, with the health warning that everything I'm about to say is likely to be proved wrong within a matter of hours, here's how I see the state of play for each candidate going into today's second round.
Rory Stewart: Ah, the pride of "The Middleland". Arch-nemesis of Roman Emperors and their wicked walls. Barking mad though he is, it's impossible to deny that Rory was the clear winner of the Channel 4 debate on Sunday night - he made Hunt and Javid look bland, he made Raab look like an extremist, and he made Gove look like an idiot. He'll also presumably have been boosted more than the other candidates by the departure of Matt Hancock (irrespective of Hancock's opportunistic endorsement of Boris Johnson). I expect Rory to make a big leap today and to survive the cut once again, although the million dollar question is how high up the pecking-order he'll be. Even if he makes it to the final two, though, he doesn't have a hope in hell of actually winning the leadership, because the members' ballot is literally unwinnable for anyone who isn't a hardline Brexiteer. So he's going for the silver medal, in the hope that will leave him well-placed for a future tilt at the leadership once the Brexit kaleidoscope has shifted.
Jeremy Hunt: Solid but unspectacular in the Channel 4 debate. Doesn't seem to be particularly going forwards or backwards at the moment. His hopes of reaching the final two will hinge upon no-one else having sufficient momentum to overtake him.
Sajid Javid: Of the six remaining candidates, he strikes me as being the least likely to make it to the members' ballot. That's not to say he'll be in sixth place today - he may well be higher than that. But it's hard to see his path to reaching the top two, because he doesn't have a big enough natural constituency. Stewart has the pro-Europeans, Hunt has the establishment, Johnson has the careerists and some of the Brexit headbangers, Raab has the rest of the headbangers, and Gove has the kitten-who-thinks-he's-Rambo fan-vote. Who does Javid have?
Michael Gove: I keep wondering if he realises just how ridiculous he's making himself look with the hard man routine. I can only assume he doesn't. But Tories react differently to that sort of thing than the rest of us, so God knows.
Dominic Raab: He's had a poor campaign so far, and he continued to be uninspiring in the Channel 4 debate. But I just wonder if he might be on the verge of a breakthrough in spite of himself. There's a clear incentive for the Brexit true believers to lend Raab a tactical vote in the hope of stopping Stewart, Gove and Hunt. A No Deal v No Deal members' run-off would reduce the temptation for Johnson to "pivot", as the Americans say.
Boris Johnson: Almost certainly the next Prime Minister, and all the rest may be sound and fury signifying very little.
* * *
2019 Scot Goes Pop Fundraiser: This is Day 19 of the fundraiser, and so far £7365 has been raised. That's 87% of the way towards the target figure of £8500. A million thanks to everyone who has donated so far, and I'm also extremely grateful to all the people who have left a kind comment with their donation. You can visit the fundraising page HERE.
Nevertheless, with the health warning that everything I'm about to say is likely to be proved wrong within a matter of hours, here's how I see the state of play for each candidate going into today's second round.
Rory Stewart: Ah, the pride of "The Middleland". Arch-nemesis of Roman Emperors and their wicked walls. Barking mad though he is, it's impossible to deny that Rory was the clear winner of the Channel 4 debate on Sunday night - he made Hunt and Javid look bland, he made Raab look like an extremist, and he made Gove look like an idiot. He'll also presumably have been boosted more than the other candidates by the departure of Matt Hancock (irrespective of Hancock's opportunistic endorsement of Boris Johnson). I expect Rory to make a big leap today and to survive the cut once again, although the million dollar question is how high up the pecking-order he'll be. Even if he makes it to the final two, though, he doesn't have a hope in hell of actually winning the leadership, because the members' ballot is literally unwinnable for anyone who isn't a hardline Brexiteer. So he's going for the silver medal, in the hope that will leave him well-placed for a future tilt at the leadership once the Brexit kaleidoscope has shifted.
Jeremy Hunt: Solid but unspectacular in the Channel 4 debate. Doesn't seem to be particularly going forwards or backwards at the moment. His hopes of reaching the final two will hinge upon no-one else having sufficient momentum to overtake him.
Sajid Javid: Of the six remaining candidates, he strikes me as being the least likely to make it to the members' ballot. That's not to say he'll be in sixth place today - he may well be higher than that. But it's hard to see his path to reaching the top two, because he doesn't have a big enough natural constituency. Stewart has the pro-Europeans, Hunt has the establishment, Johnson has the careerists and some of the Brexit headbangers, Raab has the rest of the headbangers, and Gove has the kitten-who-thinks-he's-Rambo fan-vote. Who does Javid have?
Michael Gove: I keep wondering if he realises just how ridiculous he's making himself look with the hard man routine. I can only assume he doesn't. But Tories react differently to that sort of thing than the rest of us, so God knows.
Dominic Raab: He's had a poor campaign so far, and he continued to be uninspiring in the Channel 4 debate. But I just wonder if he might be on the verge of a breakthrough in spite of himself. There's a clear incentive for the Brexit true believers to lend Raab a tactical vote in the hope of stopping Stewart, Gove and Hunt. A No Deal v No Deal members' run-off would reduce the temptation for Johnson to "pivot", as the Americans say.
Boris Johnson: Almost certainly the next Prime Minister, and all the rest may be sound and fury signifying very little.
* * *
2019 Scot Goes Pop Fundraiser: This is Day 19 of the fundraiser, and so far £7365 has been raised. That's 87% of the way towards the target figure of £8500. A million thanks to everyone who has donated so far, and I'm also extremely grateful to all the people who have left a kind comment with their donation. You can visit the fundraising page HERE.
Wednesday, December 12, 2018
May wins the vote, but loses the narrative
If I was a Brexiteer Tory MP, I think I'd be quietly fuming tonight about the conduct of Sir Graham Brady, who doesn't strike me as being anything like as neutral in his handling of leadership matters as his predecessors. Every step of the way yesterday and today, he seemed to be acting in collusion with the incumbent leadership and against the rebels. Downing Street effectively controlled the timing of the announcement that the 48 letter threshold had been met, the timing of the vote itself, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they also had something to do with the neat little stunt of the overall outcome of the vote being announced before the precise numbers. That's a totally illogical way of presenting the result of any vote, and presumably was intended to provide the TV news with a self-contained clip depicting Theresa May as an unalloyed victor, with the inconvenient detail that 37% of her own MPs want her gone being hurriedly dispensed with later on as if it was of only academic interest.
It was an attempt to set the narrative, but it quite simply failed. I was struck by the complete contrast between tonight's proceedings and the aftermath of another Tory leadership challenge many years ago. In 1995, just like today, people were fairly sure that the incumbent leader would be officially re-elected, but the question was always the margin of victory. In the end, rather more MPs voted against John Major than had been anticipated, but it didn't matter because the rebels grudgingly acknowledged his mandate after the result had been announced. The complete opposite happened tonight - the ERG doubled down and demanded that May should resign. Jacob Rees-Mogg may be a buffoon, but the way he laid down a marker within seconds of the result being revealed was an absolute masterclass. "The vast majority of non-payroll MPs voted against her" was exactly the angle to take, and it's a point that's very difficult for May loyalists to shut down. It's impossible for them to argue that May doesn't need the support of backbenchers. If they try to claim she still has that support, by definition that would have to mean that a substantial number of government ministers secretly voted against her, which would be even worse.
The counter-framing from the May camp was much less convincing than Rees-Mogg's effort. The pre-prepared line that had obviously been given to everyone was that May's percentage of the vote was higher than when she was elected leader in 2016. That's a complete nonsense, because she wasn't actually "elected leader" at all. The members' ballot was called off when Andrea Leadsom withdrew, and May became leader by default. The contest didn't progress beyond a three-way preliminary ballot of MPs, and nobody would really expect any candidate to get 63% of the vote when they have two opponents. (Although as it happened she got close.)
The other thing that struck me tonight is that anyone who's been thinking there's a non-trivial chance that a "People's Vote" might somehow take place under Theresa May's watch should just forget that idea. She has a weak renewed mandate, and it was won largely on the promise that she will "deliver the Brexit people voted for". She is even more boxed in than she was before, and for however long she remains Prime Minister, a referendum with a "Remain" option is inconceivable. If the assumption is that she will still be around on March 29th, Remainers should probably switch their focus to securing an extension of Article 50 - because if that doesn't happen, Britain will undoubtedly be leaving the European Union.
It was an attempt to set the narrative, but it quite simply failed. I was struck by the complete contrast between tonight's proceedings and the aftermath of another Tory leadership challenge many years ago. In 1995, just like today, people were fairly sure that the incumbent leader would be officially re-elected, but the question was always the margin of victory. In the end, rather more MPs voted against John Major than had been anticipated, but it didn't matter because the rebels grudgingly acknowledged his mandate after the result had been announced. The complete opposite happened tonight - the ERG doubled down and demanded that May should resign. Jacob Rees-Mogg may be a buffoon, but the way he laid down a marker within seconds of the result being revealed was an absolute masterclass. "The vast majority of non-payroll MPs voted against her" was exactly the angle to take, and it's a point that's very difficult for May loyalists to shut down. It's impossible for them to argue that May doesn't need the support of backbenchers. If they try to claim she still has that support, by definition that would have to mean that a substantial number of government ministers secretly voted against her, which would be even worse.
The counter-framing from the May camp was much less convincing than Rees-Mogg's effort. The pre-prepared line that had obviously been given to everyone was that May's percentage of the vote was higher than when she was elected leader in 2016. That's a complete nonsense, because she wasn't actually "elected leader" at all. The members' ballot was called off when Andrea Leadsom withdrew, and May became leader by default. The contest didn't progress beyond a three-way preliminary ballot of MPs, and nobody would really expect any candidate to get 63% of the vote when they have two opponents. (Although as it happened she got close.)
The other thing that struck me tonight is that anyone who's been thinking there's a non-trivial chance that a "People's Vote" might somehow take place under Theresa May's watch should just forget that idea. She has a weak renewed mandate, and it was won largely on the promise that she will "deliver the Brexit people voted for". She is even more boxed in than she was before, and for however long she remains Prime Minister, a referendum with a "Remain" option is inconceivable. If the assumption is that she will still be around on March 29th, Remainers should probably switch their focus to securing an extension of Article 50 - because if that doesn't happen, Britain will undoubtedly be leaving the European Union.
* * *
Now is the time - but has anyone told Tory MPs?
If nothing else, what today has revealed is just how blatantly the rules for Tory leadership challenges are slanted to help an incumbent leader survive. We maybe lost sight of that because the same rules were successfully used to topple Iain Duncan Smith in 2003, but he was of course the most hapless Tory leader in post-war history. Think of how differently things would be playing out under the rules that applied thirty years ago - ie. an automatic annual leadership election in which any MP could stand if they had a proposer and seconder. We'd be straight into a battle between Boris Johnson and Theresa May (and possibly others) in which the candidates would have parity of esteem, and May's deficiencies would be cruelly exposed. She'd probably lose.
As it is, she isn't standing against anyone, so the vote today has become a simple matter of loyalty or disloyalty in the leader. No wonder so few MPs have been willing to stick their heads above the parapet and say publicly that they are voting to remove her. That has sucked some of the momentum out of the anti-May drive, a problem exacerbated by the fact that the leadership were in effective control of the timetable of the vote, and chose the ultra-quick option so that wavering MPs have no time to think. The leadership also effectively controlled the timing of the announcement of the vote, allowing for a choreographed 'shock and awe' campaign of endorsements for the PM early this morning. The TV news dutifully reported all of that, as if Cabinet ministers supporting their own leader was somehow surprising or significant.
On the other hand, we won't know for sure until the result is announced, and secret ballots of Tory MPs do sometimes throw up wild surprises. Most famous is the 1975 example, in which large numbers of MPs who had publicly endorsed Edward Heath must have quietly voted for Mrs Thatcher. And in 1997, the scale of William Hague's victory over Kenneth Clarke took everyone by surprise. We'll see. Given what happened on the evening of the EU referendum, I would certainly caution everyone not to read too much into the calmness of the financial and betting markets.
As it is, she isn't standing against anyone, so the vote today has become a simple matter of loyalty or disloyalty in the leader. No wonder so few MPs have been willing to stick their heads above the parapet and say publicly that they are voting to remove her. That has sucked some of the momentum out of the anti-May drive, a problem exacerbated by the fact that the leadership were in effective control of the timetable of the vote, and chose the ultra-quick option so that wavering MPs have no time to think. The leadership also effectively controlled the timing of the announcement of the vote, allowing for a choreographed 'shock and awe' campaign of endorsements for the PM early this morning. The TV news dutifully reported all of that, as if Cabinet ministers supporting their own leader was somehow surprising or significant.
On the other hand, we won't know for sure until the result is announced, and secret ballots of Tory MPs do sometimes throw up wild surprises. Most famous is the 1975 example, in which large numbers of MPs who had publicly endorsed Edward Heath must have quietly voted for Mrs Thatcher. And in 1997, the scale of William Hague's victory over Kenneth Clarke took everyone by surprise. We'll see. Given what happened on the evening of the EU referendum, I would certainly caution everyone not to read too much into the calmness of the financial and betting markets.
* * *
Monday, July 11, 2016
Mother Theresa
Just to prove that this blog can match the respect for democracy shown by those whoopin', cheerin', laughin', seamstress-mum-lovin' Labour plotters, I am delighted to report that these are the results of a poll I've just run on Twitter...
Should the title of my next blogpost be 'May Day' or 'Mother Theresa'?
'May Day' : 76%
'Mother Theresa' : 24%
Congratulations, Theresa May, on being confirmed as the next Prime Minister of your country. Just a gentle reminder : we no longer want to be part of your country.
* * *
I'm sure we were all moved by the constant claims during the US primary season that "only in America can the son of a penniless Cuban immigrant become a candidate for President". But frankly, who cares? Surely Britain is the only country in the world where the daughter of a seamstress can front an establishment coup. This is the real land of opportunity.
* * *
Clarification is being urgently sought on whether Theresa May's mother was a seamstress. Her position may yet be untenable by the end of the day.
* * *
Nigel Farage declared on the morning after the referendum that a "Brexit government" was required. Odd that he then declared his life's work to have been achieved and vanished in a puff of smoke before bothering to find out whether there was even going to be a Brexit Prime Minister.
* * *
Until today, there were real concerns that the Tory party might end up looking fractionally more democratic than Labour by the end of the summer. Happily, that calamity has been averted.
Should the title of my next blogpost be 'May Day' or 'Mother Theresa'?
'May Day' : 76%
'Mother Theresa' : 24%
Congratulations, Theresa May, on being confirmed as the next Prime Minister of your country. Just a gentle reminder : we no longer want to be part of your country.
* * *
I'm sure we were all moved by the constant claims during the US primary season that "only in America can the son of a penniless Cuban immigrant become a candidate for President". But frankly, who cares? Surely Britain is the only country in the world where the daughter of a seamstress can front an establishment coup. This is the real land of opportunity.
* * *
Clarification is being urgently sought on whether Theresa May's mother was a seamstress. Her position may yet be untenable by the end of the day.
* * *
Nigel Farage declared on the morning after the referendum that a "Brexit government" was required. Odd that he then declared his life's work to have been achieved and vanished in a puff of smoke before bothering to find out whether there was even going to be a Brexit Prime Minister.
* * *
Until today, there were real concerns that the Tory party might end up looking fractionally more democratic than Labour by the end of the summer. Happily, that calamity has been averted.
Thursday, July 7, 2016
Extremist Leadsom reaches the final two after novel "Vote for Gove so he can be given a damn good thrashing" pitch fails to resonate
Conservative leadership election, second ballot :
Theresa May 199 (60.5%)
Andrea Leadsom 84 (25.5%)
Michael Gove 46 (14.0%)
Michael, you have been evicted. Please leave the Tory Madhouse. (It's not pantomime booing, babes, they actually do hate you.)
There was some speculation that the notorious (not to say hilarious) email begging MPs to vote tactically for Gove was always intended to be leaked, to ensure that the "Michael is willing to take a damn good thrashing over the next two months" message got out to as wide as audience as possible. If so, it backfired spectacularly, because he actually got fewer votes in the second ballot than in the first. Who could possibly have foreseen that such a stunt would further tarnish both his reputation and his credibility?
Anyway, we now move on to a lengthy head-to-head members' ballot between Andrea Leadsom and Theresa May. And it sounds like it will indeed be very lengthy, because the Leadsom camp are understandably resisting any attempts to shorten the timetable - they need plenty of time to build their relatively unknown candidate up. Today's outcome also makes it much less likely that the whole thing will be called off in favour of a May coronation - it's possible that if Gove had finished a distant second to May, he might have been pressurised into standing down on the basis that he was very well known but had still been rejected, but Leadsom can reasonably claim that the momentum is with her and that there is still a realistic prospect of the members choosing her.
The outcome of this contest will be hugely important for all of us in the independence movement. Although Theresa May's tentative stance on negotiations with the EU effectively rule out the Norway option and continued membership of the European Economic Area, it's probably safe to say that Brexit will happen slower and take a slightly less extreme form with May than it will with Leadsom. Judging from my exchange with Duncan Hothersall earlier, it sounds like some in Scottish Labour will be praying for May to come out on top, because it's their only hope that they will still have some thin excuse for continuing to oppose independence.
OK, it's not impossible that Ken Clarke is right, and that Leadsom is just a chancer who will backtrack on all of her crazy promises as soon as she is elected. But if she doesn't, she'll back Labour into a corner. That could lead to a dramatic realignment in Scottish politics on the constitutional question - and one that would render independence near-enough inevitable.
Theresa May 199 (60.5%)
Andrea Leadsom 84 (25.5%)
Michael Gove 46 (14.0%)
Michael, you have been evicted. Please leave the Tory Madhouse. (It's not pantomime booing, babes, they actually do hate you.)
There was some speculation that the notorious (not to say hilarious) email begging MPs to vote tactically for Gove was always intended to be leaked, to ensure that the "Michael is willing to take a damn good thrashing over the next two months" message got out to as wide as audience as possible. If so, it backfired spectacularly, because he actually got fewer votes in the second ballot than in the first. Who could possibly have foreseen that such a stunt would further tarnish both his reputation and his credibility?
Anyway, we now move on to a lengthy head-to-head members' ballot between Andrea Leadsom and Theresa May. And it sounds like it will indeed be very lengthy, because the Leadsom camp are understandably resisting any attempts to shorten the timetable - they need plenty of time to build their relatively unknown candidate up. Today's outcome also makes it much less likely that the whole thing will be called off in favour of a May coronation - it's possible that if Gove had finished a distant second to May, he might have been pressurised into standing down on the basis that he was very well known but had still been rejected, but Leadsom can reasonably claim that the momentum is with her and that there is still a realistic prospect of the members choosing her.
The outcome of this contest will be hugely important for all of us in the independence movement. Although Theresa May's tentative stance on negotiations with the EU effectively rule out the Norway option and continued membership of the European Economic Area, it's probably safe to say that Brexit will happen slower and take a slightly less extreme form with May than it will with Leadsom. Judging from my exchange with Duncan Hothersall earlier, it sounds like some in Scottish Labour will be praying for May to come out on top, because it's their only hope that they will still have some thin excuse for continuing to oppose independence.
OK, it's not impossible that Ken Clarke is right, and that Leadsom is just a chancer who will backtrack on all of her crazy promises as soon as she is elected. But if she doesn't, she'll back Labour into a corner. That could lead to a dramatic realignment in Scottish politics on the constitutional question - and one that would render independence near-enough inevitable.
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
Answers to two burning questions
Question : Why is Theresa May being richly rewarded for doing exactly what Jeremy Corbyn is accused of - not putting her back into the Remain campaign?
Answer : In one sense it's perfectly logical, because pro-Europeanism is the centre of gravity in the Labour party and Euroscepticism is the centre of gravity in the Tory party, so you'd expect behaviour that is punished in one party to be rewarded in the other. But that doesn't get the media off the hook. I watched Robert Peston's interview with May on his Sunday show, and as far as I can remember he didn't even raise the issue of her total invisibility during the referendum campaign, or challenge her on whether she is partly responsible for Britain leaving the European Union and her party getting into this mess in the first place.
Question : Why was there such a ludicrously unbalanced panel on last night's BBC Scotland debate?
Answer : This is just a guess, but I think I've worked it out. The starting-point was probably that the referendum campaign is now over and that we're back to normal party politics, so an invitation was issued to the three largest parties - SNP, Tory and Labour. But then they realised that it would be a bit silly to have an all-Remain panel, so they also invited the head of the Leave campaign's Scottish branch to provide some balance. That sounds fine until you remember that the head of the Leave campaign's Scottish branch is Tom "Bomber Admin" Harris, who was a Labour MP until just over a year ago. Once you do remember that, really it should dawn on you that the whole panel-making process has gone horribly wrong, and that you just can't go ahead with a debate dominated by discussion on the EU referendum and independence if the panel is composed of 3 anti-independence politicians and 1 pro-independence politician, and 3 Remainers and 1 Leaver. It's also hard to see how Scotland's third largest party could possibly be entitled to half of the entire panel.
In spite of everything, though, it's just as well that Adam "IT'S THE LAW!!!!!" Tomkins was there, because the comic relief came entirely from that trusty direction. He reassured us that all of the Tory leadership candidates apart from the one who is expected to win have promised that EU citizens can stay in this country. What a relief! And he spent much of the programme disagreeing violently with just about everything Michael Gove has ever said (he dismissed Gove's promises about devolving powers over immigration, for instance) before confirming that, naturally, he'd be backing Gove as leader because (wait for it) he wanted a "liberal" in the job. Well, why not? Tomkins is Scotland's leading self-styled "expert", and Gove is the man who doesn't listen to experts, A match made in heaven.
On a more serious note, I think we got a good indication from Tomkins of what the Scottish Tory strategy is going to be over the coming months. He started the programme by claiming to broadly agree with Fiona Hyslop's stance on exploring every option to keep Scotland in Europe, before waffling at length about a number of vague options that would not actually involve Scotland staying in the European Union, and that would probably fall well short of even the Norway or Swiss models. Clearly we're going to see an attempt to conflate any sort of loose Britain-EU trade deal with the concept of "keeping Scotland in Europe". We mustn't let them get away with that kind of disingenuous language.
* * *
I spoke to my Hungarian friend again, and she made the point that it's not really that much help to be told that Britain is still in the European Union and that the rights of EU citizens haven't been affected for now, because any employer trying to fill a vacancy is bound to take the longer-term uncertainty into account when making their choice. Interestingly, she doesn't blame Theresa May for stoking that uncertainty, because she reckons that it's not possible for any promises to be made until a comprehensive deal is thrashed out with the EU. I'm not sure that's true, actually - if Britain is going to control its own immigration policy, it should be perfectly possible to give a categorical assurance to EU citizens right now.
* * *
What do Nigel Farage and Bob Monkhouse have in common? They're both famous for using the line "they're not laughing now", and for the fact that people were laughing when they said it.
* * *
Today is a red letter day - it's the first time in twenty-one years (since the freak show of Major v Redwood) that there's been an internal party ballot to choose the Prime Minister. It's also only the third Tory leadership contest to be held in the reality TV era, so I trust we'll be hearing the following tonight -
"Tory Madhouse, this is the chairman of the 1922 Committee, please do not swear. Michael! Theresa! Liam! Andrea! And Stephen! MPs have been voting all day, and I can now reveal that the first candidate to leave the Tory Madhouse is..." (Dramatic pause...)
Answer : In one sense it's perfectly logical, because pro-Europeanism is the centre of gravity in the Labour party and Euroscepticism is the centre of gravity in the Tory party, so you'd expect behaviour that is punished in one party to be rewarded in the other. But that doesn't get the media off the hook. I watched Robert Peston's interview with May on his Sunday show, and as far as I can remember he didn't even raise the issue of her total invisibility during the referendum campaign, or challenge her on whether she is partly responsible for Britain leaving the European Union and her party getting into this mess in the first place.
Question : Why was there such a ludicrously unbalanced panel on last night's BBC Scotland debate?
Answer : This is just a guess, but I think I've worked it out. The starting-point was probably that the referendum campaign is now over and that we're back to normal party politics, so an invitation was issued to the three largest parties - SNP, Tory and Labour. But then they realised that it would be a bit silly to have an all-Remain panel, so they also invited the head of the Leave campaign's Scottish branch to provide some balance. That sounds fine until you remember that the head of the Leave campaign's Scottish branch is Tom "Bomber Admin" Harris, who was a Labour MP until just over a year ago. Once you do remember that, really it should dawn on you that the whole panel-making process has gone horribly wrong, and that you just can't go ahead with a debate dominated by discussion on the EU referendum and independence if the panel is composed of 3 anti-independence politicians and 1 pro-independence politician, and 3 Remainers and 1 Leaver. It's also hard to see how Scotland's third largest party could possibly be entitled to half of the entire panel.
In spite of everything, though, it's just as well that Adam "IT'S THE LAW!!!!!" Tomkins was there, because the comic relief came entirely from that trusty direction. He reassured us that all of the Tory leadership candidates apart from the one who is expected to win have promised that EU citizens can stay in this country. What a relief! And he spent much of the programme disagreeing violently with just about everything Michael Gove has ever said (he dismissed Gove's promises about devolving powers over immigration, for instance) before confirming that, naturally, he'd be backing Gove as leader because (wait for it) he wanted a "liberal" in the job. Well, why not? Tomkins is Scotland's leading self-styled "expert", and Gove is the man who doesn't listen to experts, A match made in heaven.
On a more serious note, I think we got a good indication from Tomkins of what the Scottish Tory strategy is going to be over the coming months. He started the programme by claiming to broadly agree with Fiona Hyslop's stance on exploring every option to keep Scotland in Europe, before waffling at length about a number of vague options that would not actually involve Scotland staying in the European Union, and that would probably fall well short of even the Norway or Swiss models. Clearly we're going to see an attempt to conflate any sort of loose Britain-EU trade deal with the concept of "keeping Scotland in Europe". We mustn't let them get away with that kind of disingenuous language.
* * *
I spoke to my Hungarian friend again, and she made the point that it's not really that much help to be told that Britain is still in the European Union and that the rights of EU citizens haven't been affected for now, because any employer trying to fill a vacancy is bound to take the longer-term uncertainty into account when making their choice. Interestingly, she doesn't blame Theresa May for stoking that uncertainty, because she reckons that it's not possible for any promises to be made until a comprehensive deal is thrashed out with the EU. I'm not sure that's true, actually - if Britain is going to control its own immigration policy, it should be perfectly possible to give a categorical assurance to EU citizens right now.
* * *
What do Nigel Farage and Bob Monkhouse have in common? They're both famous for using the line "they're not laughing now", and for the fact that people were laughing when they said it.
* * *
Today is a red letter day - it's the first time in twenty-one years (since the freak show of Major v Redwood) that there's been an internal party ballot to choose the Prime Minister. It's also only the third Tory leadership contest to be held in the reality TV era, so I trust we'll be hearing the following tonight -
"Tory Madhouse, this is the chairman of the 1922 Committee, please do not swear. Michael! Theresa! Liam! Andrea! And Stephen! MPs have been voting all day, and I can now reveal that the first candidate to leave the Tory Madhouse is..." (Dramatic pause...)
Monday, July 4, 2016
The huge importance of Ruth Davidson's declaration that London should not attempt to block a second independence referendum
There's a devil in me that almost (not quite, but almost) wants Andrea Leadsom to become Prime Minister, because what she's proposing is so mind-bogglingly ridiculous that it would surely push even more people towards the conclusion that independence is the only answer to this mess. Not only is she (like Gove) arguing for a Full Fat Brexit that would involve complete withdrawal from the single market, but she also wants to bring matters to a head at breakneck speed. Perhaps the Express were misrepresenting her slightly, but they seemed to be suggesting that she ideally wants to bypass Article 50 with an Act of Parliament (presumably to repeal the European Communities Act 1972) and leave the EU by next spring.
This is where Ruth Davidson's explicit declaration that the UK government should not attempt to block a second indyref gets interesting. My reading of it is that Davidson may be concerned that some of the leadership contenders are rather less respectful of Scotland's right to self-determination than others, and that in a worst-case scenario we could end up with an intransigent Thatcher-type figure who unwittingly turns independence into the settled will of the Scottish people, just as the real Thatcher accidentally built the consensus for devolution three decades ago. Leadsom's zealotry leaves me wondering if she's the candidate that Davidson is most worried about. Presumably the intention is to lay down a marker well before the new leader is anointed, and to make it next to impossible for that person - regardless of who it is - to contradict the Scottish Tories' clearly-stated stance on a possible indyref.
* * *
As a fond tribute to Dan "Hokey Cokey" Hodges, allow me to perform a 180 degree U-turn on a sort-of-prediction I made only four days ago. I said that Michael Gove was likely to be the new Prime Minister. Although I still maintain that Gove would have a very good chance of defeating Theresa May in the members' ballot (especially after an opportunity to push all the right buttons in head-to-head TV debates), it now looks entirely possible that he won't even get as far as that ballot. He's caught in a pincer between Boris Johnson supporters who are backing Andrea Leadsom out of revenge, and some Theresa May supporters who are apparently voting tactically for Leadsom to ensure Gove is not May's opponent in the members' vote.
The Leadsom phenomenon is odd, though, because if the Leave brigade want a Brexiteer Prime Minister, Gove is surely their most realistic hope. If Leadsom goes up against May in the final ballot, members will compare the two candidates' respective ministerial experience and won't be able to see past May as the obvious choice. On the other hand, there could also be a small danger for May-supporting tactical voters, because reducing their candidate's support in the MPs' ballot might undermine the sense of inevitability about the final outcome.
* * *
One thing I meant to mention on the previous thread (and apologies if this is common knowledge and I completely missed the reporting of it) is that the datasets for last week's Panelbase poll reveal huge support for a second indyref within three years. A grand total of 60% want it to be held either during the negotiations for Brexit, or at the end of those negotiations. Only 40% don't want an indyref in the near future. Arguably the way the question was posed and the way the options were presented made a favourable response more likely, but on the face of it that's the clearest support for a second referendum that we've seen in any of the polls over the last ten days.
* * *
I noticed a short exchange from a few days ago between Morag (Rolfe) and RevStu about whether the ScotPulse independence poll putting Yes on 59% and No on 32% should be considered legitimate or not. I'm not sure we should look at it in quite such a binary way, but I do disagree with RevStu when he says that the ScotPulse figures are within the margin of error of the other polls we've seen. With Don't Knows excluded, ScotPulse actually had Yes on 65% - light-years away from the 52% with Don't Knows excluded in the Panelbase poll, and from the 53% and 54% with Don't Knows excluded in the two Survation polls. We've seen no datasets of any kind from ScotPulse, but I'd suggest the most likely explanation for the discrepancy is that their sample was not fully representative of the Scottish population, and/or was not correctly weighted.
* * *
If/when the next indyref gets underway, do you suppose the Yes campaign might be cheeky enough to call themselves "Better Together in Europe" and adopt Why Build Another Wall as their theme song? Altogether now...
So why build another wa-a-a-all?
So why build another wa-a-a-a-a-a-all?
This is where Ruth Davidson's explicit declaration that the UK government should not attempt to block a second indyref gets interesting. My reading of it is that Davidson may be concerned that some of the leadership contenders are rather less respectful of Scotland's right to self-determination than others, and that in a worst-case scenario we could end up with an intransigent Thatcher-type figure who unwittingly turns independence into the settled will of the Scottish people, just as the real Thatcher accidentally built the consensus for devolution three decades ago. Leadsom's zealotry leaves me wondering if she's the candidate that Davidson is most worried about. Presumably the intention is to lay down a marker well before the new leader is anointed, and to make it next to impossible for that person - regardless of who it is - to contradict the Scottish Tories' clearly-stated stance on a possible indyref.
* * *
As a fond tribute to Dan "Hokey Cokey" Hodges, allow me to perform a 180 degree U-turn on a sort-of-prediction I made only four days ago. I said that Michael Gove was likely to be the new Prime Minister. Although I still maintain that Gove would have a very good chance of defeating Theresa May in the members' ballot (especially after an opportunity to push all the right buttons in head-to-head TV debates), it now looks entirely possible that he won't even get as far as that ballot. He's caught in a pincer between Boris Johnson supporters who are backing Andrea Leadsom out of revenge, and some Theresa May supporters who are apparently voting tactically for Leadsom to ensure Gove is not May's opponent in the members' vote.
The Leadsom phenomenon is odd, though, because if the Leave brigade want a Brexiteer Prime Minister, Gove is surely their most realistic hope. If Leadsom goes up against May in the final ballot, members will compare the two candidates' respective ministerial experience and won't be able to see past May as the obvious choice. On the other hand, there could also be a small danger for May-supporting tactical voters, because reducing their candidate's support in the MPs' ballot might undermine the sense of inevitability about the final outcome.
* * *
One thing I meant to mention on the previous thread (and apologies if this is common knowledge and I completely missed the reporting of it) is that the datasets for last week's Panelbase poll reveal huge support for a second indyref within three years. A grand total of 60% want it to be held either during the negotiations for Brexit, or at the end of those negotiations. Only 40% don't want an indyref in the near future. Arguably the way the question was posed and the way the options were presented made a favourable response more likely, but on the face of it that's the clearest support for a second referendum that we've seen in any of the polls over the last ten days.
* * *
I noticed a short exchange from a few days ago between Morag (Rolfe) and RevStu about whether the ScotPulse independence poll putting Yes on 59% and No on 32% should be considered legitimate or not. I'm not sure we should look at it in quite such a binary way, but I do disagree with RevStu when he says that the ScotPulse figures are within the margin of error of the other polls we've seen. With Don't Knows excluded, ScotPulse actually had Yes on 65% - light-years away from the 52% with Don't Knows excluded in the Panelbase poll, and from the 53% and 54% with Don't Knows excluded in the two Survation polls. We've seen no datasets of any kind from ScotPulse, but I'd suggest the most likely explanation for the discrepancy is that their sample was not fully representative of the Scottish population, and/or was not correctly weighted.
* * *
If/when the next indyref gets underway, do you suppose the Yes campaign might be cheeky enough to call themselves "Better Together in Europe" and adopt Why Build Another Wall as their theme song? Altogether now...
So why build another wa-a-a-all?
So why build another wa-a-a-a-a-a-all?
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Will Michael Gove's Scottish accent count for anything?
It's only a week since the betting markets (or rather the notion that they are some sort of predictive God) faced their Waterloo, but it looks to me like it could easily happen all over again. As of this moment, Theresa May is the strong favourite on the Betfair exchange to become the new Prime Minister, with Michael Gove way back on 4/1 - the equivalent of a 20% probability of a Gove premiership. Those look like crazy odds. Gove should easily make the final two in the MPs' ballot, and I would then expect him to boss the head-to-head TV debates with May (assuming she is the other candidate). Quite honestly, though, I think Gove would win a members' ballot even if it was held tomorrow. Presumably the markets are going astray because punters are looking at Gove's very real unpopularity with the public and assuming that's bound to translate into members' votes against him - but it won't. Remember this is the party that preferred Iain Duncan Smith to Ken Clarke, and by quite some margin.
That probably means we're going to have the third post-war Scottish Prime Minister - in terms of origin, I mean, rather than constituency. I'm wondering if Gove's accent will count for anything at all north of the border? After all, we're a country that will quite happily pick up the phone and vote for fairly nasty and horrible people to win reality TV shows as long as they talk like us. Gordon Brown's accent may have been almost entirely responsible for Scottish Labour's dead cat bounce in 2010. So surely having a Scot at the helm will at least add a couple of percentage points to the Tories' ratings, and perhaps even give a shot in the arm to the anti-independence forces? Well, the polling evidence so far suggests otherwise. A YouGov poll earlier this week reported that Gove had 5% support across Britain as the best new PM - but just 1% in Scotland. Perhaps this is an example of the Michael Forsyth phenomenon - once someone is sufficiently associated with the worst extremes of Toryism, we cease to notice anything else about them.
My own favourite Gove moment (apart from the 'clean for the Queen' photo, obviously, which is everyone's favourite) was back in 2003, when he was still a journalist and pundit. He appeared on STV on the morning after the Holyrood election, which had brought mixed fortunes for the pro-independence movement - the SNP had suffered losses, but the overall number of pro-independence MSPs had slightly increased. Gove declared that, to his surprise, George Robertson had been proved right, and that devolution had killed Scottish nationalism stone dead after all.
For the Tories' sake, I hope his political antenna has improved since then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)