Labour have been busily feigning outrage for weeks that Alex Salmond wasn't taking part in two of the three Scottish side-debates, so you'd probably imagine they will now be pronouncing themselves thoroughly satisfied with his change of heart about tomorrow's final BBC debate. Er...no, actually. If the early reaction of a Labour activist on Twitter is anything to go by, it appears they're attempting a seamless switch back to the "what-does-he-want-to-take-part-for, he's-not-even-a-candidate-in-this-election" line.
Jeez. Sort it out, guys.
In spite of what I said about this a couple of weeks ago, I'm sure this is absolutely the right call by the SNP. The three rigged UK-wide debates have now been broadcast, and strategies for preventing a repeat of that outrage can be left for another day. For now, it's all about taking every last opportunity to maximise the SNP's vote in this election. Jim Murphy will be privately horrified that his slightly creepy Jackanory-style storytelling approach to debating is about to face the full Eck treatment for a second time.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Thankyou to the Guardian for scratching my three-year itch
The Guardian's decision this evening to endorse the Liberal Democrats (albeit with certain caveats) may well have considerable ramifications, but I must admit my own first reaction to the news was rather petty. I've previously documented here some of the epic online scraps I've had over the last couple of years with (for the most part) right-wingers, but as far as I can remember my very first one was on the discussion page for a Wikipedia article, back in the early months of 2007. It all started with a contribution I made to Alex Salmond's WP biography which, without wanting to blow my own trumpet (*cough*) was deemed good enough by the Sunday Times to be worth nicking in slightly altered form for part of a profile of the soon-to-be First Minister. So I was somewhat miffed to spot that my handiwork had been butchered by a contributor called 'Longlivefolkmusic' on the grounds of "bad writing", and sarcastic suggestions that the whole article had been a "campaign page" rather than a bio. Upon further investigation, however, it transpired (as is so often the case on Wikipedia) that the said contributor had something of a bee in his bonnet that was distorting his concept of 'neutrality'. He was a right-wing American who saw 'liberal bias' in every corner - hardly untypical, but for some reason his own personal fixation was correcting this problem primarily in UK political articles, which he set about doing with an affected air of teacherly condescension and utter exasperation. In particular, the word 'sheesh' seemed to feature a great deal in his edit summaries.
The problem for him, unfortunately, was that he clearly wasn't half as familiar with his subject-matter as he imagined himself to be, and in 'correcting' text he had taken one look at and assumed to be biased he frequently ended up inventing startling new facts. (A particular favourite of mine was that the Liberal Democrats had "merged" with the Pro-Euro Conservative Party.) So, as he'd left such an inviting open goal, I couldn't resist getting my own back by correcting some of these factual errors, and I naturally attached some condescending "in-the-style-of-Longlivefolkmusic" edit summaries to my revisions for good measure. It wasn't long before I provoked a reaction - but to my surprise the one that really got his goat was my rather innocuous replacement of his description of the Guardian as a "pro-Labour" newspaper with the words "left-leaning". Now, the Guardian is undoubtedly a progressive and anti-Conservative newspaper, and I could see how an American used to a closed two-party system would assume that this automatically made it a Labour publication, but it seemed to me its measure of support over the years for the Liberals, SDP-Liberal Alliance and the Liberal Democrats made the unqualified term "pro-Labour" far too simplistic, especially for an encyclopedia. 'Left-leaning' seemed to me to be a much more accurate and uncontroversial description - but to my bemusement I was informed by an incandescent Longlivefolkmusic that it was far too "affectionate"! I naturally set about defending my corner robustly, but little did I realise that the argument I was embarking upon would -
* Take up 10,000 words.
* Last for two months.
And this was a discussion about the appropriateness of two words. Only at Wikipedia.
At one point he convinced himself I was a woman (I've absolutely no idea why he would jump to that conclusion about someone calling themselves 'Sofia') - but that was one factual error I didn't bother correcting. Anyway, I now at last feel thoroughly vindicated, but I'll try to resist the temptation to pop back and say 'I told you so'.
As for the Guardian's recommendation of tactical voting where necessary to keep the Conservatives out, their logic would seem to clearly suggest a vote for the SNP in at least four constituencies - although I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that point didn't occur to this most brazenly Anglo-centric of newspapers. It doesn't end there, though - a large part of the rationale for a Lib Dem endorsement is that party's commitment to genuine electoral reform. As the SNP share that commitment, surely a vote for the Nationalists in seats where they are the only alternative to Labour would also be consistent with the approach the Guardian have set out?
The problem for him, unfortunately, was that he clearly wasn't half as familiar with his subject-matter as he imagined himself to be, and in 'correcting' text he had taken one look at and assumed to be biased he frequently ended up inventing startling new facts. (A particular favourite of mine was that the Liberal Democrats had "merged" with the Pro-Euro Conservative Party.) So, as he'd left such an inviting open goal, I couldn't resist getting my own back by correcting some of these factual errors, and I naturally attached some condescending "in-the-style-of-Longlivefolkmusic" edit summaries to my revisions for good measure. It wasn't long before I provoked a reaction - but to my surprise the one that really got his goat was my rather innocuous replacement of his description of the Guardian as a "pro-Labour" newspaper with the words "left-leaning". Now, the Guardian is undoubtedly a progressive and anti-Conservative newspaper, and I could see how an American used to a closed two-party system would assume that this automatically made it a Labour publication, but it seemed to me its measure of support over the years for the Liberals, SDP-Liberal Alliance and the Liberal Democrats made the unqualified term "pro-Labour" far too simplistic, especially for an encyclopedia. 'Left-leaning' seemed to me to be a much more accurate and uncontroversial description - but to my bemusement I was informed by an incandescent Longlivefolkmusic that it was far too "affectionate"! I naturally set about defending my corner robustly, but little did I realise that the argument I was embarking upon would -
* Take up 10,000 words.
* Last for two months.
And this was a discussion about the appropriateness of two words. Only at Wikipedia.
At one point he convinced himself I was a woman (I've absolutely no idea why he would jump to that conclusion about someone calling themselves 'Sofia') - but that was one factual error I didn't bother correcting. Anyway, I now at last feel thoroughly vindicated, but I'll try to resist the temptation to pop back and say 'I told you so'.
As for the Guardian's recommendation of tactical voting where necessary to keep the Conservatives out, their logic would seem to clearly suggest a vote for the SNP in at least four constituencies - although I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that point didn't occur to this most brazenly Anglo-centric of newspapers. It doesn't end there, though - a large part of the rationale for a Lib Dem endorsement is that party's commitment to genuine electoral reform. As the SNP share that commitment, surely a vote for the Nationalists in seats where they are the only alternative to Labour would also be consistent with the approach the Guardian have set out?
Frankie Boyle and humanity : the other side of the coin
Having criticised comedian Frankie Boyle in a recent post for his 'lack of humanity', I must admit I'm left with a totally different impression of him after reading this lengthy statement he's released in response to the BBC Trust's decision to apologise for a joke he made on Radio 4 about Israel's treatment of Palestinians -
"The situation in Palestine seems to be, in essence, apartheid. I grew up with the anti apartheid thing being a huge focus of debate. It really seemed to matter to everybody that other human beings were being treated in that way. We didn’t just talk about it, we did things, I remember boycotts and marches and demos all being held because we couldn’t bear that people were being treated like that.
A few years ago I watched a documentary about life in Palestine. There’s a section where a UN dignitary of some kind comes to do a photo opportunity outside a new hospital. The staff know that it communicates nothing of the real desperation of their position, so they trick her into a side ward on her way out. She ends up in a room with a child who the doctors explain is in a critical condition because they don’t have the supplies to keep treating him. She flounders, awkwardly caught in the bleak reality of the room, mouthing platitudes over a dying boy.
The filmmaker asks one of the doctors what they think the stunt will have achieved. He is suddenly angry, perhaps having just felt at first hand something he knew in the abstract. The indifference of the world. ‘She will do nothing,’ he says to the filmmaker. Then he looks into the camera and says, ‘Neither will you’.
I cried at that and promised myself that I would do something. Other than write a few stupid jokes I have not done anything. Neither have you."
"The situation in Palestine seems to be, in essence, apartheid. I grew up with the anti apartheid thing being a huge focus of debate. It really seemed to matter to everybody that other human beings were being treated in that way. We didn’t just talk about it, we did things, I remember boycotts and marches and demos all being held because we couldn’t bear that people were being treated like that.
A few years ago I watched a documentary about life in Palestine. There’s a section where a UN dignitary of some kind comes to do a photo opportunity outside a new hospital. The staff know that it communicates nothing of the real desperation of their position, so they trick her into a side ward on her way out. She ends up in a room with a child who the doctors explain is in a critical condition because they don’t have the supplies to keep treating him. She flounders, awkwardly caught in the bleak reality of the room, mouthing platitudes over a dying boy.
The filmmaker asks one of the doctors what they think the stunt will have achieved. He is suddenly angry, perhaps having just felt at first hand something he knew in the abstract. The indifference of the world. ‘She will do nothing,’ he says to the filmmaker. Then he looks into the camera and says, ‘Neither will you’.
I cried at that and promised myself that I would do something. Other than write a few stupid jokes I have not done anything. Neither have you."
Friday, April 30, 2010
Are the post-debate polls grossly misleading?
It was striking on News at Ten last night that the average 'worm rating' awarded by the panel of floating voters to each of the party leaders showed a startlingly different picture to the instant polls (and indeed to Tom Bradby's omniscient pronouncements on the same programme). Clegg was the winner, with Cameron in a dismal third. Now of course this can perhaps be explained by the small sample size, but it's just as likely down to a more sophisticated method of measuring opinion. The instant polls are essentially first-past-the-post verdicts on what are (albeit rigged) three-way contests, with David Cameron being declared the 'winner' on the dubious basis that a larger minority of respondents thought he was the best of the three than thought the same about Clegg. But even in his most positive poll (YouGov) Cameron was the favourite of just 41% of respondents, and the figure is as low as 35% with both ICM and ComRes. This tells you absolutely nothing about what the remaining 59-65% thought of Cameron's performance. If second preferences or average scores out of ten had been asked for by the pollsters, I suspect we'd be looking at a much more nuanced picture today than the 'Cameron victory' being gleefully reported by the right-wing press.
Still, perception (however misplaced) is everything when it comes to generating momentum, and my fear is the reporting of last night's events may move the Tories closer to overall majority territory. Heaven help us all.
Still, perception (however misplaced) is everything when it comes to generating momentum, and my fear is the reporting of last night's events may move the Tories closer to overall majority territory. Heaven help us all.
'I'm pleased to say the majority of students are now women...'
It may seem strange to single out a throwaway remark from a ninety-minute debate, but they can often be the most revealing. I really did think it was utterly extraordinary that Gordon Brown seemed to genuinely regard an area of blatant gender inequality as a point of pride - indeed it was hard to escape the impression that it had never even occurred to him that it might not be. As a society we seem to be caught in a kind of trance on certain equality issues - because it's been absolutely right and necessary over a period of decades to radically enhance women's opportunities in many spheres, no-one seems to spot that this actually becomes a bad thing at the point at which males are unfairly left way behind. Does Mr Brown really think he deserves to be congratulated for an education system in which boys and men are now clearly disadvantaged?
We've heard many similar jaw-dropping claims before. There was an article in the Scotsman a year or two back about the decreasing proportion of medical graduates who are male, and it included a contribution from an expert who didn't bother proposing ways of reversing the trend, but instead suggested we should accept it and embrace the advantages of the 'feminisation of medicine'. Now, you can quite often measure the absurdity of a statement by saying the complete opposite out loud and seeing if it sounds right. Can you imagine the reaction if, in a hypothetically reversed situation in which women were still grossly under-represented amongst medical graduates, someone recommended that instead of bleating about it, we should simply celebrate the 'masculinity of medicine'?
Doubtless, there are many, many walks of life where women still face outrageous levels of discrimination and barriers to achievement. But the logical and just response to that is to tackle the problems in those specific areas, rather than trying to 'even the score' in some way by welcoming outright female supremacy in other spheres.
We've heard many similar jaw-dropping claims before. There was an article in the Scotsman a year or two back about the decreasing proportion of medical graduates who are male, and it included a contribution from an expert who didn't bother proposing ways of reversing the trend, but instead suggested we should accept it and embrace the advantages of the 'feminisation of medicine'. Now, you can quite often measure the absurdity of a statement by saying the complete opposite out loud and seeing if it sounds right. Can you imagine the reaction if, in a hypothetically reversed situation in which women were still grossly under-represented amongst medical graduates, someone recommended that instead of bleating about it, we should simply celebrate the 'masculinity of medicine'?
Doubtless, there are many, many walks of life where women still face outrageous levels of discrimination and barriers to achievement. But the logical and just response to that is to tackle the problems in those specific areas, rather than trying to 'even the score' in some way by welcoming outright female supremacy in other spheres.
Labour on the wrong side of the true dividing line on electoral reform
Wonderfully symbolic that, just a week out from polling day, a motion was passed in the Scottish Parliament supporting the principle of proportional representation for Westminster elections - and that it was opposed outright not only by the Tories, but also by Labour. There could hardly be a more eloquent exposition of where the true dividing line lies on electoral reform, with only the SNP, Greens and Liberal Democrats in favour. What continues to baffle me is why Nick Clegg didn't nail Gordon Brown on that point in the first two leaders' debates, when the PM repeatedly and cynically tried to plant the bogus idea in voters' minds that his proposed change to the voting system is the same reform proposed by the Liberal Democrats and others for years. What was so difficult about saying "you are not proposing proportional representation, so no, we don't agree with you"? Clegg presumably had a tactical reason for not doing so, but it's beyond me what it could have been - at face value, it seemed to offer Labour a means to pinch PR-friendly voters from the Lib Dems and others on a wholly false prospectus.
Also in the Scottish Parliament, we had the surreal retro spectacle of Iain "the Snarl" Gray openly boasting about having 'led' the 1980s teachers' strike. Now could this be the same Labour party that in well over a decade of government at Westminster has never, to the best of my recollection, conceded the vague possibility that a strike might be justifiable? Perhaps Gray was the warm-up act for the abrupt 180-degree turn on industrial relations we might be about to witness if the party returns to opposition down south next week.
The moral consistency of the Labour animal is a truly wondrous thing to behold.
Also in the Scottish Parliament, we had the surreal retro spectacle of Iain "the Snarl" Gray openly boasting about having 'led' the 1980s teachers' strike. Now could this be the same Labour party that in well over a decade of government at Westminster has never, to the best of my recollection, conceded the vague possibility that a strike might be justifiable? Perhaps Gray was the warm-up act for the abrupt 180-degree turn on industrial relations we might be about to witness if the party returns to opposition down south next week.
The moral consistency of the Labour animal is a truly wondrous thing to behold.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Today is Bias Freedom Day
There's a concept called 'Tax Freedom Day', which is the theoretical calendar date at which you've earned enough in a year to cover your annual taxes, and thus for the rest of the year whatever you earn goes into your own pocket. Well, perhaps this is the day in the election campaign that should be dubbed 'Bias Freedom Day', as at 10pm tonight the obscene bonus coverage for the three London-based parties in this campaign - over-and-above the disproportionate coverage they usually receive anyway - will finally come to an end. Will the remaining week of relative normality help the SNP to right the wrong that's been done both to them, and to the Scottish public who've been deprived thus far of the chance to properly consider the full range of choices before them? Let's hope so, although Angus Robertson summed up the problem better than anyone so far on Newsnight Scotland last night - "when we speak to people on the doorstep, they often tell us they're waiting for the final debate to make up their minds how they're going to vote". If the SNP and Plaid Cymru aren't even allowed twenty seconds of exposure on the main forum which the voters are using to inform their choices, how can this election possibly be regarded as free and fair?
*
It doesn't exactly inspire huge confidence that this weekend's Scottish and Welsh "leaders'" debates are being regarded as anything other than tokenistic by the broadcasters when the backdrop to tonight's showdown appears to be the words 'THE FINAL DEBATE' in huge capital letters.
*
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I saw 'Chris g00', one of Political Betting's resident Jockophobes, 'satirically' suggesting that an English court should be asked to block Alex Salmond's "throw them a bone" appearance on Question Time this evening. Yep, a programme in which the three London-based parties have mere parity with the SNP really is discriminatory beyond belief, isn't it?
*
It doesn't exactly inspire huge confidence that this weekend's Scottish and Welsh "leaders'" debates are being regarded as anything other than tokenistic by the broadcasters when the backdrop to tonight's showdown appears to be the words 'THE FINAL DEBATE' in huge capital letters.
*
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I saw 'Chris g00', one of Political Betting's resident Jockophobes, 'satirically' suggesting that an English court should be asked to block Alex Salmond's "throw them a bone" appearance on Question Time this evening. Yep, a programme in which the three London-based parties have mere parity with the SNP really is discriminatory beyond belief, isn't it?
Could Lardner's suspension impact upon the national popular vote?
A small point, but an intriguing one. With only 59 constituencies in Scotland, the withdrawal of official status from homophobic/climate change denying/Rhodesian white supremacist sympathising/all round Tory good egg Philip Lardner means that nearly 2% of the entire population of the country are now no longer being actively invited to vote Conservative. Given the psychological impact of the national popular vote figures, could this make a small but significant difference to the outcome of the election in Scotland? Not impossible, although I can't rid myself of the nasty thought that Lardner may actually have made himself a more attractive proposition for some voters with his bigoted views (if I can dare to use the taboo word of the moment).
The only comparable situation I can think of to this was in a 1994 by-election, when the Liberal Democrat candidate rather cynically defected to Labour before polling, and just as now, it was too late to withdraw his name from the ballot paper. So voters had the almost unique thrill of two Labour candidates to choose from, one of whom was urging them to vote for the other!
The only comparable situation I can think of to this was in a 1994 by-election, when the Liberal Democrat candidate rather cynically defected to Labour before polling, and just as now, it was too late to withdraw his name from the ballot paper. So voters had the almost unique thrill of two Labour candidates to choose from, one of whom was urging them to vote for the other!
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Time to call the London establishment's bluff with a UK 'Free Alliance'?
So the SNP have failed in their bid to secure fair representation (or indeed any representation) in tomorrow's final leaders' debate, but if anyone had lingering concerns that the decision to take legal action was a tactical error, I'd suggest the considerable publicity generated over the last thirty-six hours or so ought to dispel them. In a sense what this has all been about is simply reminding people that the SNP do actually exist and are an option in this election - that may sound a silly point, but given the obscene disparity of coverage fuelled by the rigged debates, there are a lot of people for whom the SNP haven't registered on the radar yet. I'm not necessarily suggesting that what has happened will be sufficient to help the Nationalists close the gap that appears to have opened up in the polls with the Liberal Democrats, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's been worth an extra 1% or so in the popular vote. If so, it's been well worthwhile - as the Tesco evil empire would have it, every little helps.
The main reason I always thought it was so important that this matter be tested in court is that the format of the leaders' debates isn't just a one-off issue for this election alone - it sets a precedent for all future Westminster elections. Tragically (and it genuinely is tragic for the democratic process, not just for the SNP and Plaid) that precedent will now stand. Crucially, however, the spurious rationale the broadcasters and London parties have put forward for the debates as constituted will also now stand, and I'd suggest - ironically - that provides the nationalist parties with a considerable opportunity for the next general election, assuming plans are put in place well in advance. Alex Salmond has mused a number of times over the last few weeks that perhaps the SNP and Plaid should put up candidates in England to gain access to the debates - he seemed to be saying it facetiously, but if that really is all that's required, and there are now four or five years to organise things, why not? The main obstacle would of course be financial, but the events of the last few days have shown how generous small donors to the SNP can be when there's the clear incentive of righting the wrong of this democratic outrage.
So how much would it cost to stand in all 632 seats across Great Britain? (Note - it's not necessary to stand in Northern Ireland, as the broadcasters bizarrely seem to regard that as a complete irrelevance to the issue of who qualifies as a 'national UK' party.) Well, the SNP of course already routinely stand in all 59 Scottish constituencies, and Plaid Cymru in the 40 Welsh constituencies. The Cornish party Mebyon Kernow, allied to the SNP and Plaid at European level, would hopefully be keen to join the alliance. That brings us to 104 seats already, leaving 527 to be filled (according to convention the Speaker's constituency can be ignored). It would be ideal if there was a pre-existing English party, however small, to fill the breach, but as far as I can see there isn't one that fits the bill - the English Democrats have sometimes claimed to be an English equivalent to the SNP, but their right-wing chauvinism suggests otherwise. The stunt of standing candidates in Monmouthshire in the Welsh Assembly election (on the pledge to take the county back into England) said it all - can you imagine the reaction if the SNP made an explicit territorial claim on Berwick-upon-Tweed? The EDs are essentially just UKIP draped in a St George's Cross rather than the Union Jack.
So unfortunately it'll be probably be necessary to bite the bullet and put up the remaining candidates independently. To fund the deposits for that would cost £263,500. But if it was possible to raise £50,000 over a day or two, surely it would be eminently achievable to raise five times as much over a four or five-year parliament, especially if donors knew how immense the potential reward was?
Once established as a Great Britain-wide force, this new alliance could then appoint a nominal 'Prime Minister-designate', just as the SDP-Liberal Alliance did in 1983. Realistically this would be either Angus Robertson or Elfyn Llwyd, assuming they were still the Westminster group leaders of their respective parties. At that point, it really becomes very difficult to see how the broadcasters could continue to justify the alliance's exclusion from election debates. They would be standing in as many seats as Labour and the Liberal Democrats, and they would have an identifiable leader who would not only have the theoretical capacity to become Prime Minister, but who would also be - in the convenient new jargon - "trying" to do so. Crucially, this alliance would be in a different category to the likes of the Greens and UKIP (although quite honestly I see no reason why those parties shouldn't be involved in the debates either) because, like the Lib Dems, it would have a long, settled history of continuous parliamentary representation. If you look at the SNP and Plaid Cymru in combination, they've had an unbroken presence in the Commons since Gwynfor Evans won the Carmarthen by-election in 1966.
So all that's left is the tricky question of what this new political force should call itself. The SNP and Plaid Cymru have of course been referring to themselves collectively as the 'Celtic Bloc' (perhaps inspired by the Bloc Québécois) but that wouldn't seem quite appropriate for an alliance spanning the whole of Britain. My next thought was 'Nationalist Alliance', which has the beauty of doing exactly what it says on the tin, but of course the word 'nationalist' means different things to different people, and can be easily misconstrued. So perhaps the simplest thing to do is look to the name of the European political family the SNP, Plaid and Mebyon Kernow are already part of. Time for a UK 'Free Alliance' to step forward?
The main reason I always thought it was so important that this matter be tested in court is that the format of the leaders' debates isn't just a one-off issue for this election alone - it sets a precedent for all future Westminster elections. Tragically (and it genuinely is tragic for the democratic process, not just for the SNP and Plaid) that precedent will now stand. Crucially, however, the spurious rationale the broadcasters and London parties have put forward for the debates as constituted will also now stand, and I'd suggest - ironically - that provides the nationalist parties with a considerable opportunity for the next general election, assuming plans are put in place well in advance. Alex Salmond has mused a number of times over the last few weeks that perhaps the SNP and Plaid should put up candidates in England to gain access to the debates - he seemed to be saying it facetiously, but if that really is all that's required, and there are now four or five years to organise things, why not? The main obstacle would of course be financial, but the events of the last few days have shown how generous small donors to the SNP can be when there's the clear incentive of righting the wrong of this democratic outrage.
So how much would it cost to stand in all 632 seats across Great Britain? (Note - it's not necessary to stand in Northern Ireland, as the broadcasters bizarrely seem to regard that as a complete irrelevance to the issue of who qualifies as a 'national UK' party.) Well, the SNP of course already routinely stand in all 59 Scottish constituencies, and Plaid Cymru in the 40 Welsh constituencies. The Cornish party Mebyon Kernow, allied to the SNP and Plaid at European level, would hopefully be keen to join the alliance. That brings us to 104 seats already, leaving 527 to be filled (according to convention the Speaker's constituency can be ignored). It would be ideal if there was a pre-existing English party, however small, to fill the breach, but as far as I can see there isn't one that fits the bill - the English Democrats have sometimes claimed to be an English equivalent to the SNP, but their right-wing chauvinism suggests otherwise. The stunt of standing candidates in Monmouthshire in the Welsh Assembly election (on the pledge to take the county back into England) said it all - can you imagine the reaction if the SNP made an explicit territorial claim on Berwick-upon-Tweed? The EDs are essentially just UKIP draped in a St George's Cross rather than the Union Jack.
So unfortunately it'll be probably be necessary to bite the bullet and put up the remaining candidates independently. To fund the deposits for that would cost £263,500. But if it was possible to raise £50,000 over a day or two, surely it would be eminently achievable to raise five times as much over a four or five-year parliament, especially if donors knew how immense the potential reward was?
Once established as a Great Britain-wide force, this new alliance could then appoint a nominal 'Prime Minister-designate', just as the SDP-Liberal Alliance did in 1983. Realistically this would be either Angus Robertson or Elfyn Llwyd, assuming they were still the Westminster group leaders of their respective parties. At that point, it really becomes very difficult to see how the broadcasters could continue to justify the alliance's exclusion from election debates. They would be standing in as many seats as Labour and the Liberal Democrats, and they would have an identifiable leader who would not only have the theoretical capacity to become Prime Minister, but who would also be - in the convenient new jargon - "trying" to do so. Crucially, this alliance would be in a different category to the likes of the Greens and UKIP (although quite honestly I see no reason why those parties shouldn't be involved in the debates either) because, like the Lib Dems, it would have a long, settled history of continuous parliamentary representation. If you look at the SNP and Plaid Cymru in combination, they've had an unbroken presence in the Commons since Gwynfor Evans won the Carmarthen by-election in 1966.
So all that's left is the tricky question of what this new political force should call itself. The SNP and Plaid Cymru have of course been referring to themselves collectively as the 'Celtic Bloc' (perhaps inspired by the Bloc Québécois) but that wouldn't seem quite appropriate for an alliance spanning the whole of Britain. My next thought was 'Nationalist Alliance', which has the beauty of doing exactly what it says on the tin, but of course the word 'nationalist' means different things to different people, and can be easily misconstrued. So perhaps the simplest thing to do is look to the name of the European political family the SNP, Plaid and Mebyon Kernow are already part of. Time for a UK 'Free Alliance' to step forward?
Haven't the Tories noticed the SNP and Plaid are also in favour of electoral reform?
A bizarre story in the Financial Times this evening, suggesting that the Tories may be looking to do deals with nationalist and unionist parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to avert the need for an arrangement with the Liberal Democrats. In one sense, the fact that Tory sources are even talking like this is a huge moral victory for the SNP, because it drives a coach and horses through the claim we've repeatedly heard from all the London-based parties that the SNP would only be a peripheral presence, even in a balanced parliament.
However, the point at which you realise that the Tories are indulging in wishful thinking here (or perhaps playing some unspecified psychological game) is when the report mentions that the reason they want to avoid dealing with the Lib Dems is to circumvent the need for concessions on electoral reform. Given that the SNP have repeatedly listed PR for the Commons as one of their top priorities in a balanced parliament, it's very hard to see how the Tory first-past-the-post Neanderthals are going to find any greater comfort in a nationalist embrace. Democratic Unionist MPs in Northern Ireland are a very different story, of course - but they could only seal the deal for Cameron if he is within at least ten seats of an outright majority.
However, the point at which you realise that the Tories are indulging in wishful thinking here (or perhaps playing some unspecified psychological game) is when the report mentions that the reason they want to avoid dealing with the Lib Dems is to circumvent the need for concessions on electoral reform. Given that the SNP have repeatedly listed PR for the Commons as one of their top priorities in a balanced parliament, it's very hard to see how the Tory first-past-the-post Neanderthals are going to find any greater comfort in a nationalist embrace. Democratic Unionist MPs in Northern Ireland are a very different story, of course - but they could only seal the deal for Cameron if he is within at least ten seats of an outright majority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)