I haven't got round to writing a Eurovision post so far this year, but that doesn't mean I haven't been keeping an eye on the national finals season - I managed to sit through most of the Latvian selection two or three weeks back, which I think should entitle me to some sort of medal. Suffice to say they chose the wrong song, and in any event the best performance of the night was the preview of the Swiss entry, which is never a great sign. It was exciting to see Niamh Kavanagh make an unlikely comeback for Ireland, but dismaying to see the song she's been given isn't a patch on In Your Eyes. What seems like an eternity ago (it must have been January) I also saw a Norwegian semi, and a bit of what I think was probably the Icelandic final. Bit sad to see that Maria Haukaas Storeng didn't quite make it in Norway, if only because her return to the Eurovision stage would probably just about have finished Keith Mills off, but admittedly the song wasn't as strong this time. What Norway ended up with instead is an intensely irritating entry, which even more intensely irritatingly probably has quite a good chance of winning. From the others I've heard, Denmark may provide Europe's only slender hope of salvation.
But it was the UK's turn tonight. And unfortunately, pretty much all the fears I'd expressed last year about the Your Country Needs You format proved to be justified. In a nutshell, those worries were - "this might work fine as a one-off with Andrew Lloyd-Webber, but what happens next year?" There simply wasn't any point in continuing with the same format unless a similarly big-name composer could be found - and Pete Waterman isn't it. By all accounts he's barely known in Europe.
That wouldn't have mattered if he'd come up with a knockout song capable of blowing the competition away, and if the auditions had produced a stellar assortment of undiscovered talent - but the exercise was a failure on both counts. Admittedly, Jade Ewen was the only really strong performer on the show last year, but one was all that was needed. As for Waterman's song...well, the most that can be said for it is that it might have finished about fourth in the Eurovision in 1985. It's obviously a competent composition, and few will absolutely loathe it, but the problem with the Eurovision voting system is that you don't get any points for being the least hated. Decent enough inoffensive songs have an uncanny habit of finishing last, especially when they're put forward by unpopular countries like the UK. It was slightly painful making the direct comparison between the three performances of That Sounds Good to Me and the rendition of Fairytale immediately afterwards, because it served to emphasise just how far short we've fallen of a potential winner yet again.
For what it's worth, I voted for Esma, but I think that was mainly because she won me over with her performance of This Time I Know It's For Real. On the strength of the performances of the actual entry, probably Josh was just about the right winner, but none of them inspired huge confidence.
What do all recent Eurovision winners have in common? They all came through conventional open national selections. (The only partial exception was Greece in 2005, when Elena Paparizou was pre-selected as the performer, but the public chose the song.) Hopefully the one silver lining of a seemingly inevitable dismal showing this year is that it might persuade the BBC to forget about quick fixes and instead go back to the hard graft of finding a range of quality songs for the public to choose from. It's an open question whether the performer should be pre-selected or not - the UK's experience in the 1990s suggests it can work either way. But the problem with pre-selecting a composer and giving him carte blanche is that you're at the mercy of one person's questionable idea of what makes a Eurovision winner, and there's no Plan B if it goes horribly wrong. The unveiling of the song tonight was such an anti-climax, because from that moment on there was no way back and no meaningful decision to be made.
I dare say if we have a conventional national final next year, I'll be straight back to spitting fury about someone like John Barrowman setting himself up as a Eurovision 'expert' on the basis of no discernible evidence, and on the back of that strongly steering the public towards voting for a disaster area of a song in preference to a potential winner (for the avoidance of doubt I'm talking about 2007!). But even that prospect seems like the lesser of two evils just at the moment. Graham Norton started the show by saying "last year the UK got serious about Eurovision". To which the response of Europe will surely be "so why did you stop?".
Final thought - ever since the wonder that was Yodel in the Canyon of Love way back in 1997, we have now had just one Scottish act perform in a UK Eurovision selection show (that was City Chix). No Scottish act has actually represented the UK since Scott Fitzgerald in 1988. As I observed last year, we don't even have to bother crying under-representation - the numbers speak for themselves. It seems that Eurovision mimics political reality - if Scotland ever wants to get anywhere in Europe, the only option is to go it alone...
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Are the SNP re-establishing a clear lead over the Tories in the YouGov daily polls?
I may of course be foolishly tempting fate by posing that question, because subsamples are so volatile it's quite possible the new set of figures released in the morning will show the SNP slipping back to third place. However, for what it's worth, there have now been several YouGov subsamples in quick succession that have shown a clear lead for the SNP over the Tories, in one case by as much as seventeen points. This breaks the pattern of the previous few weeks, which had shown the two parties locked together in a close battle for second place. Here are the latest figures -
Labour 37% (-7)
SNP 23% (-)
Liberal Democrats 19% (+8)
Conservatives 15% (-2)
Others 7% (+3)
That raw 23% vote share is admittedly not fantastic, but has reached as high as the low 30s in recent days. If previous practice is followed, these recent subsamples should at some point be aggregated together to form the basis for a 'poll' to be reported in the Scottish Sun, so some slightly better headlines may be on the way for the SNP - unless of course the Scottish Sun pick and choose when it's convenient for them to report such figures!
Labour 37% (-7)
SNP 23% (-)
Liberal Democrats 19% (+8)
Conservatives 15% (-2)
Others 7% (+3)
That raw 23% vote share is admittedly not fantastic, but has reached as high as the low 30s in recent days. If previous practice is followed, these recent subsamples should at some point be aggregated together to form the basis for a 'poll' to be reported in the Scottish Sun, so some slightly better headlines may be on the way for the SNP - unless of course the Scottish Sun pick and choose when it's convenient for them to report such figures!
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Revealed (maybe) : the broadcasters' fallback position on the leaders' debates
A very interesting exchange I've just had on Political Betting - a poster called 'The Screaming Eagles' claims to have a source in Sky who has told him of the basis for the broadcasters' confidence that their proposals for a selective line-up of three in the forthcoming leaders' debates is law-proof. But, intriguingly, when pushed further the poster conceded that the broadcasters have a fallback position to cover the possibility that the SNP or Plaid Cymru might actually win a legal case -
"the debates will only air in England.
However the broadcasters will argue, that those with Sky in Scotland will be able to watch the debates on channel 974 (BBC1 London)
And with the freeview, BBC iplayer, you tube, and sky player, it will be impracticable to enforce a ban in Scotland."
In other words, another wheeze (to follow on from the 'Prime Ministerial Debate' rebranding) to artificially circumvent the inconvenient existence of a fourth major party in Scotland. What's extraordinary about this one, though, is that it tacitly acknowledges that the coverage will be grossly unbalanced, but essentially says to the court "nothing much you can do about it, gov, so you might as well let us get on with it". Now, I'm not a legal expert, but I'd have thought if such a stunt was pulled it would be perfectly open to the SNP's lawyers to simply say to the courts that they're reasonable people, and as such they would naturally only expect any block on a Scottish broadcast to be enforced to a practicable - and most certainly not an impracticable - degree. The percentage of Scots who would bother to seek out the debates by these theoretical exotic alternative methods would be fairly small, and thus the requirement for fair and balanced coverage between the four main parties in Scotland would essentially have been met. Everybody happy.
"the debates will only air in England.
However the broadcasters will argue, that those with Sky in Scotland will be able to watch the debates on channel 974 (BBC1 London)
And with the freeview, BBC iplayer, you tube, and sky player, it will be impracticable to enforce a ban in Scotland."
In other words, another wheeze (to follow on from the 'Prime Ministerial Debate' rebranding) to artificially circumvent the inconvenient existence of a fourth major party in Scotland. What's extraordinary about this one, though, is that it tacitly acknowledges that the coverage will be grossly unbalanced, but essentially says to the court "nothing much you can do about it, gov, so you might as well let us get on with it". Now, I'm not a legal expert, but I'd have thought if such a stunt was pulled it would be perfectly open to the SNP's lawyers to simply say to the courts that they're reasonable people, and as such they would naturally only expect any block on a Scottish broadcast to be enforced to a practicable - and most certainly not an impracticable - degree. The percentage of Scots who would bother to seek out the debates by these theoretical exotic alternative methods would be fairly small, and thus the requirement for fair and balanced coverage between the four main parties in Scotland would essentially have been met. Everybody happy.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
It's affection, Jim, but not as we know it
Northern Ireland's leading 'liberal unionist' blogger Chekov - who must be suitably thrilled to now find himself supporting the only major anti-agreement party in the province - has returned once again to his fixation with Scotland. It's all rather touching really, his general affection for us as a nation shines through his every word - he just can't stand our patriotism, our left-wing politics, our choice of government (especially our First Minister), and our national anthem. But if we could just get our act together and sort out those minor details for Chekov, rest assured there stands a man who desperately wants to love us. I'm guessing that Raffle Night at the Drymen Conservative and Unionist Association could well be the prototype for the 'real Scotland' that's just bursting to get out.
Anyway, it's our national anthem that's the theme of the day, with Chekov delightedly picking up on Jim Telfer's desire for Flower of Scotland to be replaced by a more 'mature' anthem. Unfortunately, perhaps due to the heavy spin on the Scotsman article he's quoting from, Chekov appears to be completely misinterpreting Telfer's words, with the suggestion that the former Scotland coach is in some way embarrassed by the 'nationalism' of the lyrics. What Telfer actually seems to be saying is that we've reached the stage of development as a nation where we can stop "defining ourselves through England" - which is in fact a solid, small 'n' nationalist argument that most SNP members would, I'm sure, be able to wholeheartedly agree with. Indeed, if there's one thing that almost guarantees that we will continue to 'define ourselves' through England, it's the continuance of the political union with our much larger neighbour. By definition, all parochial 'ninety-minute nationalists' are political unionists, if only by indolent default.
Where I part company with Telfer is that I simply don't recognise the problems he identifies with the lyrics of Flower of Scotland. It's categorically not an anti-English song, or even a song that's particularly about England - it's an anti-Edward II and anti-occupation song. Are Dutch celebrations of the liberation from Nazi rule deemed 'anti-German'?
In truth, Flower of Scotland is in many ways almost the perfect national anthem - its lyrics look to the past, present and future of our country simultaneously.
Anyway, it's our national anthem that's the theme of the day, with Chekov delightedly picking up on Jim Telfer's desire for Flower of Scotland to be replaced by a more 'mature' anthem. Unfortunately, perhaps due to the heavy spin on the Scotsman article he's quoting from, Chekov appears to be completely misinterpreting Telfer's words, with the suggestion that the former Scotland coach is in some way embarrassed by the 'nationalism' of the lyrics. What Telfer actually seems to be saying is that we've reached the stage of development as a nation where we can stop "defining ourselves through England" - which is in fact a solid, small 'n' nationalist argument that most SNP members would, I'm sure, be able to wholeheartedly agree with. Indeed, if there's one thing that almost guarantees that we will continue to 'define ourselves' through England, it's the continuance of the political union with our much larger neighbour. By definition, all parochial 'ninety-minute nationalists' are political unionists, if only by indolent default.
Where I part company with Telfer is that I simply don't recognise the problems he identifies with the lyrics of Flower of Scotland. It's categorically not an anti-English song, or even a song that's particularly about England - it's an anti-Edward II and anti-occupation song. Are Dutch celebrations of the liberation from Nazi rule deemed 'anti-German'?
In truth, Flower of Scotland is in many ways almost the perfect national anthem - its lyrics look to the past, present and future of our country simultaneously.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Exploding a synthetic conviction
I wondered aloud the other day why the SNP hadn't yet made clear whether it would seek legal redress for its exclusion from the main televised leaders' debates. This article in the Scotsman goes a long way towards answering that question, because it appears the party (along with Plaid Cymru) were deliberately kept in the dark about the announcement, and thus hadn't even been given the chance to formulate a view on its strategy when it was forced to give an initial response. This does appear to be an extraordinarily high-handed way for them to have been treated - as has been set out many times here, the case for excluding the SNP from any debates shown in Scotland is extremely thin, but the case for excluding them even from the discussions over the issue, and from the general courtesies of the process, is absolutely non-existent. These are parliamentary elections - we are about to elect a parliament. Sleights of hand about 'Prime Ministerial Debates' do not alter that indisputable truth about the function of the general election, and of the television coverage that will inform voters' choices. To treat a party that has had continuous representation in parliament for the last forty-three years as if it has no stake at all in this process - as if it was some kind of fringe organisation on a par with the Natural Law Party - is genuinely outrageous.
However, it sounds as if - after a period of reflection - the SNP and its Welsh sister party have now come up with the right way forward. Firstly, they will seek the access to discussions they have thus far been denied, and if that is still not forthcoming they can then decide on the merits of legal action. For me, the key line of the article is this - "the SNP and Plaid want to discuss how they can receive a balance of 90 minutes lost to them from the leaders' debates". That zones in on the nub of the issue. When Question Time leaders' specials have been shown across the UK in previous elections, there has always been an equivalent programme shown only in Scotland featuring the SNP leader alone. So the precedents could hardly be clearer. The only thing that can correct the gross imbalance in coverage caused by the 'Prime Ministerial Debates' is a similar programme, or more likely series of programmes, featuring Alex Salmond or Angus Robertson alone. As has been repeatedly pointed out, additional Scottish leaders' debates cannot possibly fulfil the same corrective function, for the very simple reason that the three other parties that have already received their massive bonus coverage will also be invited to take part in them.
The myth, or perhaps it could be better described as a synthetic conviction, that the Scottish debates - which are perfectly welcome on their own merits - can in some way address this issue is what must be exploded in the coming days and weeks.
However, it sounds as if - after a period of reflection - the SNP and its Welsh sister party have now come up with the right way forward. Firstly, they will seek the access to discussions they have thus far been denied, and if that is still not forthcoming they can then decide on the merits of legal action. For me, the key line of the article is this - "the SNP and Plaid want to discuss how they can receive a balance of 90 minutes lost to them from the leaders' debates". That zones in on the nub of the issue. When Question Time leaders' specials have been shown across the UK in previous elections, there has always been an equivalent programme shown only in Scotland featuring the SNP leader alone. So the precedents could hardly be clearer. The only thing that can correct the gross imbalance in coverage caused by the 'Prime Ministerial Debates' is a similar programme, or more likely series of programmes, featuring Alex Salmond or Angus Robertson alone. As has been repeatedly pointed out, additional Scottish leaders' debates cannot possibly fulfil the same corrective function, for the very simple reason that the three other parties that have already received their massive bonus coverage will also be invited to take part in them.
The myth, or perhaps it could be better described as a synthetic conviction, that the Scottish debates - which are perfectly welcome on their own merits - can in some way address this issue is what must be exploded in the coming days and weeks.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
One of the wonders of the world
I mentioned Michael Foot in my previous post - for me, the irony of hearing about his death yesterday was that, just by chance, the previous day I had been reading his legendary Commons speech from 1979 that concluded the debate on the motion of no-confidence in the Callaghan government. It has to be conceded that one of the wittiest lines from the speech was at the expense of Donald Stewart, then the parliamentary leader of the SNP, who had made a somewhat workmanlike contribution earlier that hadn't quite risen to the occasion in the way that Gerry Fitt or Gwynfor Evans had managed. Foot mischievously observed -
"However misguided the right honourable gentleman may be if he adheres to his apparent resolution to vote in the lobby with those who are most bitterly opposed to the establishment of a Scottish Assembly, honourable members who heard his speech must acknowledge the remarkable allegiance that the right honourable gentleman commands from his followers. It is one of the wonders of the world. There has bean nothing quite like it since the armies of ancient Rome used to march into battle. It is only now that we see the right honourable gentleman in his full imperial guise.
'Hail Emperor, those about to die salute you.'"
Fortunately for those of us of a nationalist persuasion, Foot reserved an even better joke for the Liberal leader David Steel, and that's the one that has been remembered from the speech down the years -
"But the leader of the Liberal Party — and I say this with the utmost affection — has passed from rising hope to elder statesman without any intervening period whatsoever."
Given these extraordinary oratorical skills, his intellect and his humanity - in the 1990s he once threw every penny of his pension into funding a TV programme to highlight the plight of the peoples of the former Yugoslavia - it's a bitter irony that Foot was destined to be remembered as the 'worst' post-war Labour leader. Well, he may have been the worst as crudely measured by electoral outcomes, but in absolutely no other sense was he Labour's 'Iain Duncan Smith'.
"However misguided the right honourable gentleman may be if he adheres to his apparent resolution to vote in the lobby with those who are most bitterly opposed to the establishment of a Scottish Assembly, honourable members who heard his speech must acknowledge the remarkable allegiance that the right honourable gentleman commands from his followers. It is one of the wonders of the world. There has bean nothing quite like it since the armies of ancient Rome used to march into battle. It is only now that we see the right honourable gentleman in his full imperial guise.
'Hail Emperor, those about to die salute you.'"
Fortunately for those of us of a nationalist persuasion, Foot reserved an even better joke for the Liberal leader David Steel, and that's the one that has been remembered from the speech down the years -
"But the leader of the Liberal Party — and I say this with the utmost affection — has passed from rising hope to elder statesman without any intervening period whatsoever."
Given these extraordinary oratorical skills, his intellect and his humanity - in the 1990s he once threw every penny of his pension into funding a TV programme to highlight the plight of the peoples of the former Yugoslavia - it's a bitter irony that Foot was destined to be remembered as the 'worst' post-war Labour leader. Well, he may have been the worst as crudely measured by electoral outcomes, but in absolutely no other sense was he Labour's 'Iain Duncan Smith'.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
David Brent is a CyberTory
One or two of you may have noticed that I wasn't quite able to stand firm on what was my (genuine) resolve to stop posting on Political Betting at the start of the year - there's something about that site that seems to be more addictive than crack cocaine. Perhaps, though, I should heed the old adage that 'you should never give up giving up'. Anyway, after a short break I quickly reverted to posting regularly, but unsurprisingly I've now made myself such a target (by inexplicably and odiously turning my face against all things Tory) that a simple 'hello' tends to be greeted with a "why do you always have to be such a w****r, James?" from the usual suspects. Even worse, the membership of the usual suspects appears to be ever-expanding, and now includes a particularly delightful poster called 'Chris q00' (catchy moniker, I'll grant him that) who enjoys nothing better than interrogating me for hours at a time on why the SNP reneged on its pledge at the 2003 Holyrood election to hold an independence referendum by 2007. (Yes, I know, it's because the SNP didn't actually win the 2003 election, but the simpler the explanation the more the poor guy seems to struggle with it.)
So it's naturally quite difficult to maintain any sort of patience with such a buffoon, and when today he ludicrously suggested that Michael Foot as Prime Minister would have taken the UK into the Warsaw Pact, I told him rather directly that I thought that was an utter joke. Curiously, this did not provoke a reaction from Chris q00 himself, but from another Tory poster called Casino Royale, who launched into this bizarre tirade, which by the sounds of it he's been storing up for, well, quite some time -
"Can you come onto this website without being nasty and vindicative to people James?
Quite frankly, I’m tired of your attitude. You never have a good word to say about anyone and are permenantly sarcastic and insulting to other posters.
In other words: an a**ehole.
You being “you” I know you’ll try and instantly turn that back on me but why not be a mature adult for once?
Take the feedback, reappraise how you behave on here and act on it."
I naturally pointed out the supreme irony of a man complaining about 'insults' and 'never having a good word to say about anyone' when he's in the middle of using words like 'a**ehole' to indulge his own personal grudge without the slightest provocation. But there was more to come, and fascinating it was too. It appears that his criticisms of me are not personal or partisan at all, but are instead objective, constructive, and deeply rooted in his - ahem - professional experience.
"This is serious. YOU HAVE A PROBLEM.
Trust me: I’ve worked with several individuals in my company who’ve exhibited the same behaviours you do on here. The HR training was incredibly interesting. The ones who became happy and successful people took the feedback on board and learnt from it. They didn’t take it personally. Even if at first, they did. They understood HR were trying to help them.
Of the rest, the ones who chose to ignore it or refused to attend the training, a couple had nervous breakdowns and all of them managed to alienate all their peers and colleagues which only compounded the problem. Some lost their jobs because of it.
Which approach do you think was the right one?"
Is it just me, or do you get the feeling that the understandable stress and panic induced by the rapidly vanishing opinion poll lead is causing some CyberTories to turn into David Brent?
So it's naturally quite difficult to maintain any sort of patience with such a buffoon, and when today he ludicrously suggested that Michael Foot as Prime Minister would have taken the UK into the Warsaw Pact, I told him rather directly that I thought that was an utter joke. Curiously, this did not provoke a reaction from Chris q00 himself, but from another Tory poster called Casino Royale, who launched into this bizarre tirade, which by the sounds of it he's been storing up for, well, quite some time -
"Can you come onto this website without being nasty and vindicative to people James?
Quite frankly, I’m tired of your attitude. You never have a good word to say about anyone and are permenantly sarcastic and insulting to other posters.
In other words: an a**ehole.
You being “you” I know you’ll try and instantly turn that back on me but why not be a mature adult for once?
Take the feedback, reappraise how you behave on here and act on it."
I naturally pointed out the supreme irony of a man complaining about 'insults' and 'never having a good word to say about anyone' when he's in the middle of using words like 'a**ehole' to indulge his own personal grudge without the slightest provocation. But there was more to come, and fascinating it was too. It appears that his criticisms of me are not personal or partisan at all, but are instead objective, constructive, and deeply rooted in his - ahem - professional experience.
"This is serious. YOU HAVE A PROBLEM.
Trust me: I’ve worked with several individuals in my company who’ve exhibited the same behaviours you do on here. The HR training was incredibly interesting. The ones who became happy and successful people took the feedback on board and learnt from it. They didn’t take it personally. Even if at first, they did. They understood HR were trying to help them.
Of the rest, the ones who chose to ignore it or refused to attend the training, a couple had nervous breakdowns and all of them managed to alienate all their peers and colleagues which only compounded the problem. Some lost their jobs because of it.
Which approach do you think was the right one?"
Is it just me, or do you get the feeling that the understandable stress and panic induced by the rapidly vanishing opinion poll lead is causing some CyberTories to turn into David Brent?
Angus Robertson for Prime Minister!
Last night, I posted a comment I had left on Michael Crick's blog, pointing out that it is not necessary for a party to stand in a majority of seats for its leader to become Prime Minister, blowing a hole in the argument that simply rebranding the leaders' debates as 'Prime Ministerial Debates' somehow justifies at a stroke the total exclusion of the SNP and Plaid Cymru. So I was intrigued to hear on Newsnight tonight Crick subtly switching to a different rationale - "of course, the Nationalist leaders are not seeking to become Prime Minister..." I'm of course not suggesting for a moment that my comment was responsible for this shift, but I do wonder if he reflected on his original explanation and realised for the same reasons just how woolly it was.
So assuming we now have the definitive explanation for why the SNP don't qualify for inclusion in the leaders' debates (sorry, keep forgetting, the 'PMDs'), it seems on the face of it there is now a very simple remedy available for the party. All they have to do is release a statement confirming that their (nominal) aim in this election is for their parliamentary leader, Angus Robertson, to become Prime Minister at the head of either a minority or coalition government, as is perfectly possible according to numerous precedents both in this country and beyond. And since, according to Crick, the PMDs are intended for politicians seeking to become PM, that should remove any lingering objections to the SNP's participation.
In any case, I've thought for a long time that the SNP should make clear that Angus Robertson is the person they are seeking to put up for the debates. That would deprive their opponents of the red herring argument that "Alex Salmond isn't even standing in this election", which was always a deliberate diversion from the central issue - the SNP's right as a party to have representation in the main debates.
It's interesting that there is no indication yet of whether the SNP are planning to seek legal redress on their exclusion. I can understand their caution, because if by any chance they were defeated in court there would unavoidably be a degree of negative publicity. However, I personally really feel that the stakes are just too high for this to go untested in court. Remember, it's not just about this election - a precedent is about to be set that will affect every subsequent election for the forseeable future.
So assuming we now have the definitive explanation for why the SNP don't qualify for inclusion in the leaders' debates (sorry, keep forgetting, the 'PMDs'), it seems on the face of it there is now a very simple remedy available for the party. All they have to do is release a statement confirming that their (nominal) aim in this election is for their parliamentary leader, Angus Robertson, to become Prime Minister at the head of either a minority or coalition government, as is perfectly possible according to numerous precedents both in this country and beyond. And since, according to Crick, the PMDs are intended for politicians seeking to become PM, that should remove any lingering objections to the SNP's participation.
In any case, I've thought for a long time that the SNP should make clear that Angus Robertson is the person they are seeking to put up for the debates. That would deprive their opponents of the red herring argument that "Alex Salmond isn't even standing in this election", which was always a deliberate diversion from the central issue - the SNP's right as a party to have representation in the main debates.
It's interesting that there is no indication yet of whether the SNP are planning to seek legal redress on their exclusion. I can understand their caution, because if by any chance they were defeated in court there would unavoidably be a degree of negative publicity. However, I personally really feel that the stakes are just too high for this to go untested in court. Remember, it's not just about this election - a precedent is about to be set that will affect every subsequent election for the forseeable future.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
When is a leaders' debate not a leaders' debate?
Michael Crick should be commended on his honesty, because he's effectively conceded in his blog that the broadcasters are deliberately cooking up a wheeze for the sole purpose of entirely excluding the SNP and Plaid Cymru from the main televised election debates. The proposed 'solution' to what many have conceded is the Nationalists' fairly unanswerable case for representation seems to be the rough equivalent of just sticking on a sultry voiceover from Dervla Kirwan to inform us that "these are not just leaders' debates...these are BBC/Sky/ITV Prime Ministerial Debates".
As explained by Crick, the logical basis for this brainwave is that, as the SNP are only standing in 59 out of 650 seats, Alex Salmond can't become Prime Minister, and therefore by definition can't qualify for a 'Prime Ministerial Debate'. I left the following comment on the blog to express my (to put it mildly) scepticism, which will hopefully appear once it's been through the moderation process -
"Nope. This still won't stand up in a Scottish court, which is presumably exactly where the SNP will be heading if they are to be outrageously excluded altogether from the main debates. Contrary to the implication of Michael's post, it is simply not necessary for a party to stand in a majority of seats to become Prime Minister - the 1924 Labour government had just 191 seats out of 615. In the early 1990s the Indian Prime Minister represented a party that had a tiny minority of seats in parliament, and there are numerous examples from continental European countries as well. Once that indisputable fact is pointed out in court - and it'll take about ten seconds - this rather desperate and cynical attempt to draw a distinction between 'party leaders' and 'Prime Ministerial candidates' will disintegrate rather quickly. Of course everyone knows Alex Salmond isn't going to be PM, but then everyone knows precisely the same about Nick Clegg. The principle is exactly the same for both leaders - and neither of them, incidentally, are leaders of nationwide parties (the Lib Dems don't stand in Northern Ireland, and nor do Labour for that matter).
Strictly speaking, under the British system it's not even necessary to be a party leader to become Prime Minister, only an MP or peer - witness the cases of both Lloyd George or Churchill. So by that standard, there are not three potential 'candidates for Prime Minister' standing at the election, nor four, or even five, but in fact several thousand. I'd suggest a conventional party leaders' debate would be preferable to such a melee, even if (horror of horrors) that means actually providing fair representation to the leaders of all four major parties in both Scotland and Wales."
As explained by Crick, the logical basis for this brainwave is that, as the SNP are only standing in 59 out of 650 seats, Alex Salmond can't become Prime Minister, and therefore by definition can't qualify for a 'Prime Ministerial Debate'. I left the following comment on the blog to express my (to put it mildly) scepticism, which will hopefully appear once it's been through the moderation process -
"Nope. This still won't stand up in a Scottish court, which is presumably exactly where the SNP will be heading if they are to be outrageously excluded altogether from the main debates. Contrary to the implication of Michael's post, it is simply not necessary for a party to stand in a majority of seats to become Prime Minister - the 1924 Labour government had just 191 seats out of 615. In the early 1990s the Indian Prime Minister represented a party that had a tiny minority of seats in parliament, and there are numerous examples from continental European countries as well. Once that indisputable fact is pointed out in court - and it'll take about ten seconds - this rather desperate and cynical attempt to draw a distinction between 'party leaders' and 'Prime Ministerial candidates' will disintegrate rather quickly. Of course everyone knows Alex Salmond isn't going to be PM, but then everyone knows precisely the same about Nick Clegg. The principle is exactly the same for both leaders - and neither of them, incidentally, are leaders of nationwide parties (the Lib Dems don't stand in Northern Ireland, and nor do Labour for that matter).
Strictly speaking, under the British system it's not even necessary to be a party leader to become Prime Minister, only an MP or peer - witness the cases of both Lloyd George or Churchill. So by that standard, there are not three potential 'candidates for Prime Minister' standing at the election, nor four, or even five, but in fact several thousand. I'd suggest a conventional party leaders' debate would be preferable to such a melee, even if (horror of horrors) that means actually providing fair representation to the leaders of all four major parties in both Scotland and Wales."
SNP still polling strongly with ComRes
In the light of the utter confusion over the last 48 hours about the polling situation in Scotland (the entirety of this evening's Newsnight Scotland was even devoted to it), just about any scrap of additional information is potentially useful. I must admit my pessimistic working assumption has been that YouGov's bleaker figures for the SNP are probably closest to the truth, but a little bit of contrary evidence has been provided by the latest ComRes subsample. It appears that the previous figures from the same firm were not the blip we might have assumed, and the SNP are still well ahead of where YouGov say they are, although admittedly they have once again slipped marginally behind Labour. Here are the full figures -
Labour 31% (+4)
SNP 29% (-5)
Conservatives 20% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 17% (+6)
Others 4% (-2)
Set against this relatively good news for the SNP, we have to bear in mind that the Scottish subsamples from YouGov's daily GB-wide polls have typically been showing somewhat lower figures for the party, broadly in line with their full-scale poll in Scotland on Sunday.
Labour 31% (+4)
SNP 29% (-5)
Conservatives 20% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 17% (+6)
Others 4% (-2)
Set against this relatively good news for the SNP, we have to bear in mind that the Scottish subsamples from YouGov's daily GB-wide polls have typically been showing somewhat lower figures for the party, broadly in line with their full-scale poll in Scotland on Sunday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)