1) The idea that has been doing the rounds in the London media that Hilary Benn is a credible caretaker "unity" Labour leader is now dead in the water. Becoming so visibly the darling of the Tory benches has completely put paid to any hopes he may have harboured in that direction.
2) Sustained clapping in the House of Commons is, it turns out, perfectly OK and will not be ruled out of order by the Speaker, just so long as it's not the Jocks doing it and as long as it's expressing support for the dropping of British bombs on a faraway country. (We already know from a previous episode that clapping is to be positively encouraged as long as it follows a speech in favour of John Bercow remaining as Speaker.)
3) The Westminster elite are quite capable of getting over the solemnity of having just voted to end people's lives. It only takes a matter of seconds for them to start chortling at the ludicrous thought of being expected to hang around for a late night debate about child abuse.
4) Labour's Stella Creasy was either pro-fascism or fascism-neutral until roughly 9.30 this evening. Or at least she was if we believe her fatuous statement that "Hilary Benn's speech persuaded me that fascism must be defeated".
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
YouGov subsample suggests Scotland is evenly split on air strikes
A new YouGov poll conducted over the last 48 hours suggests support across Britain for air strikes on Syria has dropped sharply in the last week, albeit with a plurality remaining in favour -
Would you approve or disapprove of the RAF taking part in air strike operations against Islamic State/ISIS in Syria?
(Respondents across Britain) :
Approve 48% (-11)
Disapprove 31% (+11)
There has been a lazy assumption among the right-wing commentariat in Scotland that public opinion north of the border is not especially divergent on this topic, and that the SNP are therefore essentially going against the grain of their own constituents' wishes by voting against air strikes. With the usual caveats about the statistical unreliability of subsamples, this poll suggests that may not be the case, and that Scotland is basically evenly split -
Would you approve or disapprove of the RAF taking part in air strike operations against Islamic State/ISIS in Syria?
(Respondents in Scotland) :
Approve 44% (-7)
Disapprove 41% (+12)
Very unusually, YouGov have also asked a voting intention question. I can't remember exactly how many times they've done that since the polling disaster in May, but the number can certainly be counted on the fingers of one hand. The SNP lead in the Scottish subsample is unusually "low" : SNP 41%, Labour 24%, Conservatives 20%, UKIP 8%, Liberal Democrats 4%, Greens 2%. Although on the face of it that's bad news, it leaves open the possibility that there are too few SNP voters in the subsample as a result of normal sampling variation, in which case it's perfectly conceivable that Scottish opposition to air strikes is being underestimated by the above figures. The fact that a wildly implausible combined total of 28% of the subsample are Tory or UKIP voters would tend to support that theory.
Labour right-wingers have been given something of a headache in advance of tomorrow night's parliamentary vote, because until now they've been able to draw a distinction between anti-war party members, and Labour voters who are supposedly in favour of air strikes. YouGov are suggesting that people who voted Labour across Britain in May are in fact opposed to military action by 42% to 35%.
The paradox of this poll is that it shows opinion moving in the direction of Jeremy Corbyn's stance on Syria, but also suggests public confidence in Corbyn himself is collapsing. In the space of just a fortnight, his net personal rating has slumped from -22 to -41. Intriguingly, he seems to be doing just as badly in Scotland, where he stands at -38, although that figure should be treated with caution given the over-representation of Tory and UKIP supporters in the sample. Doubtless Corbyn's critics within Labour will leap on these figures, but the reality is that this is their own handiwork - if you systematically brief against your leader, it harms both him and the party's standing. Labour's deficit in this poll has increased from six points to eleven.
I'm coming even more firmly to the conclusion that a Labour win in the Oldham West and Royton by-election on Thursday would be in the SNP's strategic interests. Although it's still unlikely that a UKIP gain would in itself be sufficient to topple Corbyn, that no longer looks totally inconceivable. It would be best for us if Corbyn's position is stabilised by a narrow electoral success, thus allowing the chaos within Labour to continue for the next five months. The last thing we need is for the run-up to the Scottish Parliament election to be dominated by a second Labour leadership contest. OK, that could exacerbate the divisions even further, but it might just prove a unifying experience for them if they happen to stumble across a credible candidate from the soft left.
* * *
It looks like internal trouble is brewing for the Liberal Democrats as well. Of the comments left so far by grassroots members and activists on Liberal Democrat Voice, only 13 are in favour of Tim Farron's decision to support the Tories and air strikes, and 23 are opposed. It may be even worse than it appears, because some of the supportive comments are in the mould of "the leader is right because it's hard to be the leader and make hard decisions and we must support the leader because he is our leader and he has made a hard decision".
Would you approve or disapprove of the RAF taking part in air strike operations against Islamic State/ISIS in Syria?
(Respondents across Britain) :
Approve 48% (-11)
Disapprove 31% (+11)
There has been a lazy assumption among the right-wing commentariat in Scotland that public opinion north of the border is not especially divergent on this topic, and that the SNP are therefore essentially going against the grain of their own constituents' wishes by voting against air strikes. With the usual caveats about the statistical unreliability of subsamples, this poll suggests that may not be the case, and that Scotland is basically evenly split -
Would you approve or disapprove of the RAF taking part in air strike operations against Islamic State/ISIS in Syria?
(Respondents in Scotland) :
Approve 44% (-7)
Disapprove 41% (+12)
Very unusually, YouGov have also asked a voting intention question. I can't remember exactly how many times they've done that since the polling disaster in May, but the number can certainly be counted on the fingers of one hand. The SNP lead in the Scottish subsample is unusually "low" : SNP 41%, Labour 24%, Conservatives 20%, UKIP 8%, Liberal Democrats 4%, Greens 2%. Although on the face of it that's bad news, it leaves open the possibility that there are too few SNP voters in the subsample as a result of normal sampling variation, in which case it's perfectly conceivable that Scottish opposition to air strikes is being underestimated by the above figures. The fact that a wildly implausible combined total of 28% of the subsample are Tory or UKIP voters would tend to support that theory.
Labour right-wingers have been given something of a headache in advance of tomorrow night's parliamentary vote, because until now they've been able to draw a distinction between anti-war party members, and Labour voters who are supposedly in favour of air strikes. YouGov are suggesting that people who voted Labour across Britain in May are in fact opposed to military action by 42% to 35%.
The paradox of this poll is that it shows opinion moving in the direction of Jeremy Corbyn's stance on Syria, but also suggests public confidence in Corbyn himself is collapsing. In the space of just a fortnight, his net personal rating has slumped from -22 to -41. Intriguingly, he seems to be doing just as badly in Scotland, where he stands at -38, although that figure should be treated with caution given the over-representation of Tory and UKIP supporters in the sample. Doubtless Corbyn's critics within Labour will leap on these figures, but the reality is that this is their own handiwork - if you systematically brief against your leader, it harms both him and the party's standing. Labour's deficit in this poll has increased from six points to eleven.
I'm coming even more firmly to the conclusion that a Labour win in the Oldham West and Royton by-election on Thursday would be in the SNP's strategic interests. Although it's still unlikely that a UKIP gain would in itself be sufficient to topple Corbyn, that no longer looks totally inconceivable. It would be best for us if Corbyn's position is stabilised by a narrow electoral success, thus allowing the chaos within Labour to continue for the next five months. The last thing we need is for the run-up to the Scottish Parliament election to be dominated by a second Labour leadership contest. OK, that could exacerbate the divisions even further, but it might just prove a unifying experience for them if they happen to stumble across a credible candidate from the soft left.
* * *
It looks like internal trouble is brewing for the Liberal Democrats as well. Of the comments left so far by grassroots members and activists on Liberal Democrat Voice, only 13 are in favour of Tim Farron's decision to support the Tories and air strikes, and 23 are opposed. It may be even worse than it appears, because some of the supportive comments are in the mould of "the leader is right because it's hard to be the leader and make hard decisions and we must support the leader because he is our leader and he has made a hard decision".
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
How many MPs will vote to bomb Syria?
The conventional wisdom at the moment seems to be that only 30 or 40 right-wing Labour MPs will go into the Tory lobby tomorrow night to vote in favour of bombing Syria. That's a suspiciously low estimate, and is in the same ball-park as the number that might have defied Corbyn's whip if he had bothered to impose it. So I'll believe it when I see it, but for the sake of argument let's take the upper figure of 40 at face value, and let's also assume that the Lib Dems will vote with the Tories (which inexplicably they seem to be moving towards), and that there will be around 10 Conservative rebels. That leaves us with -
Voting for air strikes :
Conservatives 319
Labour 40
DUP 8
Liberal Democrats 8
UUP 2
UKIP 1
Independent 1
TOTAL : 379
Voting against air strikes or abstaining :
Labour 189
SNP 54
Conservatives 10
Plaid Cymru 3
SDLP 3
Independents (suspended from SNP) 2
Greens 1
TOTAL : 262
I'm making some other guesses there, because the last I heard Douglas Carswell of UKIP and the independent Northern Ireland unionist Sylvia Hermon were both claiming to be genuinely undecided. But given their political orientation I find it hard to believe they won't come down in favour of British military action in the end.
As you can see, there's no realistic way Cameron can lose this vote. The most that can be hoped for is that as few as possible Labour MPs cop out by abstaining. If something close to 262 MPs actually vote against air strikes, that would at least severely undermine the claim that there is any sort of broad consensus. It looks like 57 out of 59 Scottish MPs will be voting against, so it certainly can't be claimed that the UK as a whole is united behind military action.
Voting for air strikes :
Conservatives 319
Labour 40
DUP 8
Liberal Democrats 8
UUP 2
UKIP 1
Independent 1
TOTAL : 379
Voting against air strikes or abstaining :
Labour 189
SNP 54
Conservatives 10
Plaid Cymru 3
SDLP 3
Independents (suspended from SNP) 2
Greens 1
TOTAL : 262
I'm making some other guesses there, because the last I heard Douglas Carswell of UKIP and the independent Northern Ireland unionist Sylvia Hermon were both claiming to be genuinely undecided. But given their political orientation I find it hard to believe they won't come down in favour of British military action in the end.
As you can see, there's no realistic way Cameron can lose this vote. The most that can be hoped for is that as few as possible Labour MPs cop out by abstaining. If something close to 262 MPs actually vote against air strikes, that would at least severely undermine the claim that there is any sort of broad consensus. It looks like 57 out of 59 Scottish MPs will be voting against, so it certainly can't be claimed that the UK as a whole is united behind military action.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Cameron's Syria setback - what impact on the independence referendum?
I have a new article up at the International Business Times (in fact it's been up for over 24 hours now, but I forgot to check). It considers the potential impact on the referendum campaign of last week's dramatic Commons vote. You can read it HERE.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Tony Blair's very finest handiwork
There are a number of obvious dangers attached to taking Nick Robinson's billing as a political expert too seriously. If I had turned the television off in disgust after hearing his 'reveal' of the Labour leadership result three years ago, I might still be firmly under the misapprehension that an entirely different Miliband had become Leader of the Opposition. I didn't make that particular mistake, but unfortunately I did stop paying much attention to the Syria debate yesterday after Robinson insisted that the government were assured of a win, mainly because their own foot-soldiers wouldn't want to give Ed Miliband any sort of fillip. I should, of course, have known that the government were doomed to defeat from the moment those words passed his lips.
The moral issues at stake yesterday weren't straightforward, because the use of chemical weapons is indeed different to the use of conventional weapons, and there's certainly a danger of a slippery slope if the world is seen to shrug its shoulders at a moment like this. But there are alternatives to studied disinterest that don't involve bombing civilians to kingdom come, or opportunistic Anglo-American attempts to alter the balance of power in the Middle East, or exercises in rank hypocrisy from politicians (including, disgracefully, Liberal Democrats) who spend much of their leisure time lecturing us about how failure to accept NATO as a first-strike WMD club is a sign of political 'immaturity'. Just for once, the Commons have stunned us all by getting a judgement call entirely right.
And for that we have Tony Blair to thank, paradoxically enough. He is the unwitting author of this result. It's worth making a comparison with the 2003 parliamentary vote on the invasion of Iraq - back then, the only real question was whether a majority of Labour backbenchers would vote for the war. Overall victory for the PM was assured in spite of the fact that the motion before the House was an umambiguous authorisation of military action that was just hours away. Fast forward ten years, and a watered-down motion that wouldn't have authorised anything has been rejected outright by a chamber in which the government hold a handsome majority of 77. And all because Blair lied, and because people's memories aren't quite as short as he'd care to think.
Philip Hammond suggested that the result of this vote would have a negative impact on the 'special relationship' with the US, which is presumably code for a marginally less slavish loyalty to US foreign policy. Now that's the kind of Blair handiwork of which I can thoroughly approve. It's almost as splendid an irony as Mrs Thatcher turning out to be the midwife of devolution.
The moral issues at stake yesterday weren't straightforward, because the use of chemical weapons is indeed different to the use of conventional weapons, and there's certainly a danger of a slippery slope if the world is seen to shrug its shoulders at a moment like this. But there are alternatives to studied disinterest that don't involve bombing civilians to kingdom come, or opportunistic Anglo-American attempts to alter the balance of power in the Middle East, or exercises in rank hypocrisy from politicians (including, disgracefully, Liberal Democrats) who spend much of their leisure time lecturing us about how failure to accept NATO as a first-strike WMD club is a sign of political 'immaturity'. Just for once, the Commons have stunned us all by getting a judgement call entirely right.
And for that we have Tony Blair to thank, paradoxically enough. He is the unwitting author of this result. It's worth making a comparison with the 2003 parliamentary vote on the invasion of Iraq - back then, the only real question was whether a majority of Labour backbenchers would vote for the war. Overall victory for the PM was assured in spite of the fact that the motion before the House was an umambiguous authorisation of military action that was just hours away. Fast forward ten years, and a watered-down motion that wouldn't have authorised anything has been rejected outright by a chamber in which the government hold a handsome majority of 77. And all because Blair lied, and because people's memories aren't quite as short as he'd care to think.
Philip Hammond suggested that the result of this vote would have a negative impact on the 'special relationship' with the US, which is presumably code for a marginally less slavish loyalty to US foreign policy. Now that's the kind of Blair handiwork of which I can thoroughly approve. It's almost as splendid an irony as Mrs Thatcher turning out to be the midwife of devolution.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
A cautionary tale : listen to Jeremy Paxman and you'll start to wonder if it's safe to breathe
I was beginning to wonder last night if Jeremy Paxman had made a bet with someone that he could break his own record from the infamous Michael Howard interview of how many times he could utter the same phrase in a single edition of Newsnight. This time, a woman called Jelena Lecic had been invited onto the programme to tell the story of how photos of her from Facebook had been used without her permission to conceal the true identity of the Syrian opposition activist Amina Arraf, aka 'A Gay Girl in Damascus' (who may or may not be a real person). But no matter what detail of the story Ms Lecic was talking about it seemed there was only ever one thing Paxo wanted to say in reply - "it's a cautionary tale, isn't it?", meaning she should have thought twice about posting personal photos on the internet. Even when she mentioned how upset she was that the Guardian hadn't responded to her complaints about using one of her photos in an article, he immediately shot her down by insisting they must have been acting in good faith, and that what she should really be taking away is that this is a "cautionary tale", young lady.
But what exactly is the 'lesson' here? The nicked photos weren't embarrassing or incriminating in any way, they weren't nude photos, they weren't photos of her with a secret lover, they were just...well, photos. And she made very clear that she had her Facebook privacy settings turned up to the max, but even that hadn't worked. So it appears Paxo's 'warning' is that you should never post any photos on any social networking site under any circumstances at all, unless you're prepared to have your identity stolen by an opposition blogger in an authoritarian state.
Sure, Jeremy. Whatever you say. Another life lesson learned.
But what exactly is the 'lesson' here? The nicked photos weren't embarrassing or incriminating in any way, they weren't nude photos, they weren't photos of her with a secret lover, they were just...well, photos. And she made very clear that she had her Facebook privacy settings turned up to the max, but even that hadn't worked. So it appears Paxo's 'warning' is that you should never post any photos on any social networking site under any circumstances at all, unless you're prepared to have your identity stolen by an opposition blogger in an authoritarian state.
Sure, Jeremy. Whatever you say. Another life lesson learned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)