It's become traditional at this time of year for me to say "oooh, this is a tough one", but actually I don't think it is this time, at least in terms of guessing the winner. I don't really get the hoo-ha over Denmark (admittedly the staging is very effective), but sometimes a consensus is just so overwhelming that you have to accept it's probably right. This is, after all, a popularity contest. So I suspect Eurovision is heading back to Copenhagen, which offers us a neat symmetry given that Denmark were also the winners the last time the contest was held in Sweden.
But who will finish second? That's much more problematical. The bookies suggest it will be a close fight between Ukraine and Norway, but the more I've thought about it, the more I've come to the conclusion that the Ukrainian song is slightly overrated (I still expect it to be in the top six or seven). Until about an hour ago, I was firmly of the view that the true contenders for the runner-up spot were Russia and Norway. Both had points in their favour - the Russian song is perhaps more televoter-friendly and has the inbuilt advantage of the ex-Soviet bloc vote, while Norway has the better draw and is more jury-friendly (ie. it's the best song left in the contest in my opinion). On balance, I reckoned that favoured Russia slightly.
But now I've seen the German dress rehearsal and I'm totally confused again. If that performance beguiles the audience in the way I think it might, in a sense it kills both Russia and Norway - it kills Russia because it's the very next song in the running-order, and it kills Norway because it's a similar type of music. On the other hand, I still can't help thinking back to all those occasions when strong dance tracks have fallen flat on their face at Eurovision (that was the main reason I was sceptical that Loreen would win last year). Another possibility is that the vote could be evenly split between Germany and Norway, allowing Russia to come through the middle. Who knows, so I'll just have to make a wild guess.
The Netherlands is one of those entries that is pretty much guaranteed a very strong 'niche' vote that will fall short of outright victory - my guess is it'll slot in somewhere between about fourth and seventh. The wildcard this year is of course Finland, replete with its wedding dress, lesbian kiss, and lyrics that are so un-feminist that James Mackenzie deleted them to enhance the debate. There was a time, not so long ago (2002, in fact) when gimmicks like that would have been more than sufficient to win the contest. I think we've moved on from those days, but time will tell.
So here's what I've got...
Winners - Denmark (Only Teardrops - Emmelie de Forest)
2nd - Russia (What If - Dina Garipova)
3rd - Norway (I Feed You My Love - Margaret Berger)
4th - Germany (Glorious - Cascada)
5th - Netherlands (Birds - Anouk)
Possible dark horses - Iceland, Finland, Ireland
As for me, I'll be sticking to my non-English language rule and voting for Iceland (or possibly Estonia, which I slightly regretted not voting for in the first semi), but my heart will be with Norway all the way. This is the third year in a row that I won't particularly be cheering on the UK, mainly because the internal selection means that I don't really feel I have any stake in the entry. Weirdly, Fraser Nelson has a lengthy piece in the Spectator on that very subject, in which he makes a number of points that I've made before myself - for example that Jonathan King, for all that he is a thoroughly objectionable human being, was the last person who actually had a well-thought-through plan for finding the right UK entry. I think Nelson takes his argument to an extreme, though - it's not as if an internal selection process is in some way 'un-Eurovision'. (The great French ballads of the early 2000s were internally selected, for instance.) And I think passing the contest onto ITV or Sky would be a terrible idea - say what you like about the BBC, but at least they faithfully broadcast both semi-finals every year, which I'm not sure ITV or Sky could be trusted to do.
The real step forward would of course be for Scotland to have its own entry. Hopefully only three more years to go...
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Friday, May 17, 2013
Farage à trois
Earlier today I was asked by the International Business Times to put together a quick piece about the Farage incident. You can read it HERE.
Sturgeon wins first setpiece TV independence debate
I think pretty much every independence supporter who watched tonight's STV debate will have come away feeling considerably more confident. It has to be remembered that TV coverage of the campaign proper will resemble this debate much more closely than the phoney TV war we've seen up to now, which has typically consisted of a pro-independence spokesperson being outnumbered two-to-one, three-to-one, or even four-to-one if you count the occasions when a 'neutral moderator' like David Dimbleby joins in with the unionist sneerfest. With the two sides of the argument having a scrupulously equal chance to put their case tonight, it was very noticeably the No side that found itself on the ropes most often. Perhaps that can be explained away by the fact that Nicola Sturgeon is simply a more able debater than Michael Moore, but if so that begs another question - where exactly is the match-up that is going to favour the No campaign? Alex Salmond v David Cameron? Blair Jenkins v Blair McDougall? Nicola Sturgeon v Alistair Darling? Dennis Canavan v Johann Lamont? Tommy Sheridan v Nigel Farage? Each and every one of those looks to favour Yes, and by quite a distance in some cases.
The most worrying sign for Moore and co was surely when Sturgeon scored a hit by pointing out that Moore had castigated the UK economy under the stewardship of Labour, while Alistair Darling had castigated the UK economy under the stewardship of the Tories and Lib Dems. How are the No campaign going to square this circle? Are they only going to present a united front in defending the UK in terms of very dry constitutional structures? Or are they seriously going to try to present a united front in defending the UK in respect of weightier matters like economic performance and welfare policy? If so, the likes of Nicola Sturgeon are going to continue having enormous fun pointing out their hopeless lack of credibility. It's a particular problem for Labour, of course, who tell us that the Tories are ghastly and we must get shot of them, but who simultaneously work with the Tories in a campaign that seeks to uphold a constitutional system that guarantees the Tories will continue to rule over us most of the time.
The other direct hit that Sturgeon scored was when she countered Michael Moore's scaremongering on the currency question by pointing out that the Liberal Democrats had proposed joining the euro as recently as their 2010 general election manifesto. Moore's rueful smile at that point was perhaps his most eloquent contribution of the whole evening!
Here's how I scored it -
Nicola Sturgeon (Yes campaign) 8/10
Michael Moore (No campaign) 6/10
And don't take my word for it - both of STV's pundits, including the venerable Mr Ponsonby, declared that Sturgeon had finished ahead on points.
* * *
I did reasonably well with my prediction for tonight's second Eurovision semi-final (eight out of ten correct), but unfortunately one of the two I wrongly picked out was San Marino, my favourite song in the whole contest. I haven't been so disappointed by a song's non-qualification since Kate Ryan's Belgian entry failed to make the cut in 2006. I'm not entirely sure what went wrong - the staging was maybe a little bit uninspired, and it had the handicap of being in the notorious second spot in the running-order, but nevertheless when you look at what it was up against it should still have qualified with ease.
Ah well, I'll just have to cheer on my second favourite Norway on Saturday night (and I might sneakily admire their oil fund while I'm at it).
The most worrying sign for Moore and co was surely when Sturgeon scored a hit by pointing out that Moore had castigated the UK economy under the stewardship of Labour, while Alistair Darling had castigated the UK economy under the stewardship of the Tories and Lib Dems. How are the No campaign going to square this circle? Are they only going to present a united front in defending the UK in terms of very dry constitutional structures? Or are they seriously going to try to present a united front in defending the UK in respect of weightier matters like economic performance and welfare policy? If so, the likes of Nicola Sturgeon are going to continue having enormous fun pointing out their hopeless lack of credibility. It's a particular problem for Labour, of course, who tell us that the Tories are ghastly and we must get shot of them, but who simultaneously work with the Tories in a campaign that seeks to uphold a constitutional system that guarantees the Tories will continue to rule over us most of the time.
The other direct hit that Sturgeon scored was when she countered Michael Moore's scaremongering on the currency question by pointing out that the Liberal Democrats had proposed joining the euro as recently as their 2010 general election manifesto. Moore's rueful smile at that point was perhaps his most eloquent contribution of the whole evening!
Here's how I scored it -
Nicola Sturgeon (Yes campaign) 8/10
Michael Moore (No campaign) 6/10
And don't take my word for it - both of STV's pundits, including the venerable Mr Ponsonby, declared that Sturgeon had finished ahead on points.
* * *
I did reasonably well with my prediction for tonight's second Eurovision semi-final (eight out of ten correct), but unfortunately one of the two I wrongly picked out was San Marino, my favourite song in the whole contest. I haven't been so disappointed by a song's non-qualification since Kate Ryan's Belgian entry failed to make the cut in 2006. I'm not entirely sure what went wrong - the staging was maybe a little bit uninspired, and it had the handicap of being in the notorious second spot in the running-order, but nevertheless when you look at what it was up against it should still have qualified with ease.
Ah well, I'll just have to cheer on my second favourite Norway on Saturday night (and I might sneakily admire their oil fund while I'm at it).
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Eurovision 2013 : Prediction for Thursday's semi-final
I got seven out of ten right on Tuesday, which is probably roughly par, given that no-one in their right mind would have predicted Lithuania's success. I can just about understand how Belgium made it through, but Belarus remains a mystery. Perhaps it was the big silver egg hatching open to reveal a half-naked woman that did the trick? Who knows. But I was delighted to see that my fears about Ryan Dolan's live performance were totally unfounded, which means Ireland must now be in with a great chance of a top ten finish on Saturday night.
Watching Russia and Ukraine perform back-to-back brought home to me that not only is Russia the better of the two songs, it also has a greater impact as a performance. A simple catchy tune, a massive key-change, lyrics about world peace...yes, I think the Russians have bought the manual. So while the bookies may yet be proved right about Denmark being the likely winners, I have a feeling they may have the wrong country in second place.
If I'd been voting 'honestly', I probably would have plumped for either Russia or Ireland (it would have been a close call), but as I've mentioned in previous years I have a personal rule of only voting for entries sung entirely in a language other than English. So that left me scratching my head about whether to vote for Estonia, Moldova or Cyprus. In the end I went for Moldova on the somewhat illogical grounds that they were the same performers who last year brought us the insane genius of "you have never been to my show, you haven't seen before how looks the trumpet".
As you'd expect, Swedish television produced a much slicker show than some of their counterparts have managed in recent years. It was a great idea to have just one presenter and therefore dispense with the customary scripted flirting, although I'm not sure Petra Mede was the ideal choice as sole host. Her English diction is undeniably exemplary, but surely there's more to life than diction? All in all, though, I enjoyed the show far more than I expected to, partly because my expectations were fairly low. A number of the songs seemed better than I remembered somehow.
Here's hoping for more of the same tonight. These are the ten countries that I think will go through -
Iceland (Ég á Líf - Eythor Ingi)
Azerbaijan (Hold Me - Farid Mammadov)
San Marino (Crisalide - Valentina Monetta)
Norway (I Feed You My Love - Margaret Berger)
Georgia (Waterfall - Nodi Tatishvili and Sophie Gelovani)
Finland (Marry Me - Krista Siegfrids)
Greece (Alcohol is Free - Koza Mostra featuring Agathon Iakovidis)
Armenia (Lonely Planet - Dorians)
Malta (Tomorrow - Gianluca Bezzina)
Switzerland (You and Me - Takasa)
I hope I'm wrong and that Israel make it through at the expense of one of the above ten (well, except Norway or San Marino), but I have a feeling it may be too uncompromisingly intense an entry.
Watching Russia and Ukraine perform back-to-back brought home to me that not only is Russia the better of the two songs, it also has a greater impact as a performance. A simple catchy tune, a massive key-change, lyrics about world peace...yes, I think the Russians have bought the manual. So while the bookies may yet be proved right about Denmark being the likely winners, I have a feeling they may have the wrong country in second place.
If I'd been voting 'honestly', I probably would have plumped for either Russia or Ireland (it would have been a close call), but as I've mentioned in previous years I have a personal rule of only voting for entries sung entirely in a language other than English. So that left me scratching my head about whether to vote for Estonia, Moldova or Cyprus. In the end I went for Moldova on the somewhat illogical grounds that they were the same performers who last year brought us the insane genius of "you have never been to my show, you haven't seen before how looks the trumpet".
As you'd expect, Swedish television produced a much slicker show than some of their counterparts have managed in recent years. It was a great idea to have just one presenter and therefore dispense with the customary scripted flirting, although I'm not sure Petra Mede was the ideal choice as sole host. Her English diction is undeniably exemplary, but surely there's more to life than diction? All in all, though, I enjoyed the show far more than I expected to, partly because my expectations were fairly low. A number of the songs seemed better than I remembered somehow.
Here's hoping for more of the same tonight. These are the ten countries that I think will go through -
Iceland (Ég á Líf - Eythor Ingi)
Azerbaijan (Hold Me - Farid Mammadov)
San Marino (Crisalide - Valentina Monetta)
Norway (I Feed You My Love - Margaret Berger)
Georgia (Waterfall - Nodi Tatishvili and Sophie Gelovani)
Finland (Marry Me - Krista Siegfrids)
Greece (Alcohol is Free - Koza Mostra featuring Agathon Iakovidis)
Armenia (Lonely Planet - Dorians)
Malta (Tomorrow - Gianluca Bezzina)
Switzerland (You and Me - Takasa)
I hope I'm wrong and that Israel make it through at the expense of one of the above ten (well, except Norway or San Marino), but I have a feeling it may be too uncompromisingly intense an entry.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Can 'freedom and democracy' cope with independence?
I have a new article at the International Business Times, which attempts to put the significance of the independence referendum in some kind of international historical context. You can read it HERE.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Eurovision 2013 : Prediction for Tuesday's semi-final
'Fraid so - it's that time of year again. Without wanting to put you off before we even get started, I don't think this is a vintage year by any means in terms of musical quality. As far as I can see, there are only really two class entries in the field - Norway's Margaret Berger with I Feed You My Love, and San Marino's Valentina Monetta with Crisalide (Vola). If there was such a thing as a 'most improved entrant' competition there could only be one winner, because - astonishingly - the superb San Marinese song is brought to us by the same combination of singer and composer that was responsible for last year's cringe-inducingly awful novelty entry The Social Network Song (Oh Oh - Uh - Oh Oh), which failed to qualify for the final after limping to 14th place in the first semi. Incidentally, if by any chance San Marino win it would be the first victory for a micro-nation since Severine won for Monaco in 1971 - a result that led to Edinburgh staging the 1972 contest after Monaco passed up the chance.
But cream rarely rises to the very top at Eurovision, so you won't be surprised to hear that neither Norway nor San Marino are tipped to win. Instead the bookies are favouring Denmark and Ukraine, very much in that order. I can just about see the appeal of the Ukrainian song, but I must admit Denmark is leaving me cold (which is a reversal of last year, when I thought Denmark deserved a far better result than they got, or ever seemed likely to get).
There are a number of other songs that are very pleasant to listen to, for example Iceland and Russia. I've got a particularly soft spot for Only Love Survives by Ryan Dolan, which I managed to vote for in the Irish national final. However, if that final is anything to go by, the live performance may prove to be something of a problem for Ryan. There's also the slightly peculiar Dutch entry, which isn't my cup of tea, but could easily have been a 1960s James Bond theme song if it had been written fifty years ago.
One huge positive about this year's contest is that almost half of the entries (17 out of 39) are sung in a language other than English. The fact that this has happened without any change in the rules, and without there having been a non-English winning song since 2007, is pretty remarkable.
Down to business, then. In no particular order, here are the ten entries that I think will qualify from Tuesday's first semi-final -
Croatia (Mižerja - Klapa s Mora)
Netherlands (Birds - Anouk)
Estonia (Et Uus Saaks Alguse - Birgit Õigemeel)
Ireland (Only Love Survives - Ryan Dolan)
Ukraine (Gravity - Zlata Ognevich)
Cyprus (An Me Thimasai - Despina Olympiou)
Serbia (Ljubav Je Svuda - Moje 3)
Russia (What If - Dina Garipova)
Denmark (Only Teardrops - Emmelie de Forest)
Moldova (O Mie - Aliona Moon)
But cream rarely rises to the very top at Eurovision, so you won't be surprised to hear that neither Norway nor San Marino are tipped to win. Instead the bookies are favouring Denmark and Ukraine, very much in that order. I can just about see the appeal of the Ukrainian song, but I must admit Denmark is leaving me cold (which is a reversal of last year, when I thought Denmark deserved a far better result than they got, or ever seemed likely to get).
There are a number of other songs that are very pleasant to listen to, for example Iceland and Russia. I've got a particularly soft spot for Only Love Survives by Ryan Dolan, which I managed to vote for in the Irish national final. However, if that final is anything to go by, the live performance may prove to be something of a problem for Ryan. There's also the slightly peculiar Dutch entry, which isn't my cup of tea, but could easily have been a 1960s James Bond theme song if it had been written fifty years ago.
One huge positive about this year's contest is that almost half of the entries (17 out of 39) are sung in a language other than English. The fact that this has happened without any change in the rules, and without there having been a non-English winning song since 2007, is pretty remarkable.
Down to business, then. In no particular order, here are the ten entries that I think will qualify from Tuesday's first semi-final -
Croatia (Mižerja - Klapa s Mora)
Netherlands (Birds - Anouk)
Estonia (Et Uus Saaks Alguse - Birgit Õigemeel)
Ireland (Only Love Survives - Ryan Dolan)
Ukraine (Gravity - Zlata Ognevich)
Cyprus (An Me Thimasai - Despina Olympiou)
Serbia (Ljubav Je Svuda - Moje 3)
Russia (What If - Dina Garipova)
Denmark (Only Teardrops - Emmelie de Forest)
Moldova (O Mie - Aliona Moon)
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Hello, I am Robert MacDonald, guest poster. As an experiment, James has kindly allowed me space on his blog. It's Sunday morning, so I thought I'd dip my toes in the pop-water with a couple of parables. Can you spot the allegories?
The Parable of the Pig Farmer
There was a pig farmer who worked hard on his farm. He fed and mucked out the pigs, went to market, and helped suckle the piglets. He was around pigs every day.
One day he went to a dance in the local town. The people held their noses as he walked by. He did not understand why. Finally a woman approached him. "You smell of pig shit," she said.
"Do I?" he said. "I work hard to give you your bacon."
But the people didn't like the smell of the pig farmer, so they told him to leave.
The Parable of the Oak Tree
One day an acorn fell and took seed. It started to grow. Next to it was a larger oak. "It's stormy up here," said the large oak. "Let me shelter you. You can grow in my shade." The young oak agreed. It was glad to be protected from the winds. But the large oak also took most of the sunshine. Birds and other creatures preferred the large oak. People carved their names on its side. It was hard for the young oak to grow very well. But it didn't complain. It was only a tree.
One day a great storm came and the large oak fell. And all the small oaks it was sheltering flourished.
The Parable of the Crabs
The Kingdom of Scotland is like this. A fisherman caught some crabs to sell, and put them in a creel. One tried to climb out, but the rest dragged him back inside. Some of the crabs realised if they painted their shells red, they could climb out the creel together, and the other crabs wouldn't stop them. So that is what they did.
When the fisherman returned to sell the crabs, the red ones had gone.
The Parable of the Surfers
One day the surfers gathered to talk about a problem. They liked surfing, but they didn't like all the sewage in the sea. It made their life unpleasant and dangerous. It was not just bad for the surfers - it was bad for every creature in the sea.
"What shall we do?" said one of the surfers.
"We can't stop the sewage being pumped into the sea ourselves," said another.
The surfers decided they would shout as loudly as they could about the sewage in the sea, and hope it would shame the polluters into taking some action.
Nobody had cared about the sewage before the surfers started shouting. But when the people heard, they decided it was time to do something about it. And the days of the polluters were over.
The Parable of the Caravan
A caravan of camels was crossing the desert. They got lost, and the leader led them into quicksand. They started to sink and get into difficulty. "I don't think we should carry on!" shouted a man at the back. But the leader wouldn't listen. She decided to continue on.
The man at the back was worried. He wanted to stay with his friends, but he was scared of the quicksand. He decided to stop and think about what to do. The rest of the caravan carried on.
A sandstorm blew up. The man couldn't see his friends. He was scared and lonely. When the sandstorm died down, his friends had gone.
He couldn't tell if they had sunk into the quicksand, or if they had safely reached the other side. But he knew one thing. Whatever had happened to them, he was safe.
The Parable of the Guard Dog
One day the Smiths needed a new guard dog. The dog breeder assured them that he had a new dog with all the good features of their old one. The Smiths took it and were happy. He attacked some strangers without provocation. One of the Smith children was upset, but Mr and Mrs Smith didn't care, so long as the dog was still guarding their family.
Then Mr Smith discovered one night that the dog was letting in burglars to steal the family's food, and covering up the evidence. The Smiths were angry, and arranged to have the dog put down.
The Smiths got themselves a new guard dog, but it was no better than the previous one. They wondered if they even needed a guard dog at all.
The Parable of the Pig Farmer
There was a pig farmer who worked hard on his farm. He fed and mucked out the pigs, went to market, and helped suckle the piglets. He was around pigs every day.
One day he went to a dance in the local town. The people held their noses as he walked by. He did not understand why. Finally a woman approached him. "You smell of pig shit," she said.
"Do I?" he said. "I work hard to give you your bacon."
But the people didn't like the smell of the pig farmer, so they told him to leave.
The Parable of the Oak Tree
One day an acorn fell and took seed. It started to grow. Next to it was a larger oak. "It's stormy up here," said the large oak. "Let me shelter you. You can grow in my shade." The young oak agreed. It was glad to be protected from the winds. But the large oak also took most of the sunshine. Birds and other creatures preferred the large oak. People carved their names on its side. It was hard for the young oak to grow very well. But it didn't complain. It was only a tree.
One day a great storm came and the large oak fell. And all the small oaks it was sheltering flourished.
The Parable of the Crabs
The Kingdom of Scotland is like this. A fisherman caught some crabs to sell, and put them in a creel. One tried to climb out, but the rest dragged him back inside. Some of the crabs realised if they painted their shells red, they could climb out the creel together, and the other crabs wouldn't stop them. So that is what they did.
When the fisherman returned to sell the crabs, the red ones had gone.
The Parable of the Surfers
One day the surfers gathered to talk about a problem. They liked surfing, but they didn't like all the sewage in the sea. It made their life unpleasant and dangerous. It was not just bad for the surfers - it was bad for every creature in the sea.
"What shall we do?" said one of the surfers.
"We can't stop the sewage being pumped into the sea ourselves," said another.
The surfers decided they would shout as loudly as they could about the sewage in the sea, and hope it would shame the polluters into taking some action.
Nobody had cared about the sewage before the surfers started shouting. But when the people heard, they decided it was time to do something about it. And the days of the polluters were over.
The Parable of the Caravan
A caravan of camels was crossing the desert. They got lost, and the leader led them into quicksand. They started to sink and get into difficulty. "I don't think we should carry on!" shouted a man at the back. But the leader wouldn't listen. She decided to continue on.
The man at the back was worried. He wanted to stay with his friends, but he was scared of the quicksand. He decided to stop and think about what to do. The rest of the caravan carried on.
A sandstorm blew up. The man couldn't see his friends. He was scared and lonely. When the sandstorm died down, his friends had gone.
He couldn't tell if they had sunk into the quicksand, or if they had safely reached the other side. But he knew one thing. Whatever had happened to them, he was safe.
The Parable of the Guard Dog
One day the Smiths needed a new guard dog. The dog breeder assured them that he had a new dog with all the good features of their old one. The Smiths took it and were happy. He attacked some strangers without provocation. One of the Smith children was upset, but Mr and Mrs Smith didn't care, so long as the dog was still guarding their family.
Then Mr Smith discovered one night that the dog was letting in burglars to steal the family's food, and covering up the evidence. The Smiths were angry, and arranged to have the dog put down.
The Smiths got themselves a new guard dog, but it was no better than the previous one. They wondered if they even needed a guard dog at all.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Ipsos-Mori : SNP retain lead in Scottish Parliament voting intentions
As you'll probably have seen by now, the latest full-scale Scottish poll from Ipsos-Mori is out, and it shows the SNP government retaining its gravity-defying lead over Labour in mid-term. However, the gap has narrowed. Here are the full figures -
SNP 39% (-4)
Labour 36% (+1)
Conservatives 16% (+3)
Liberal Democrats 8% (+1)
The figures for the independence referendum show the No campaign increasing its lead somewhat, essentially returning us to the status quo ante from the last poll but one from the same company - although the Yes share is still 1% higher than it was in that poll. Curiously, though, the focus of Ipsos-Mori's Christopher McLean (who may or may not be TSE's 'prominent pollster' Chuckle Brother) is not on the headline figures, but on the figures for the segment of the sample who claim to have already made a firm decision about how they will vote in 500 days' time. Mr McLean gets rather carried away with his own logic, first pointing to the percentage of respondents who claim they are certain to vote, then to the percentage of that percentage who claim they are certain of how they will vote, and then working out what proportion of the "remaining" voters the Yes campaign would need to convince to have a chance of winning. The one tiny flaw in this logic? The graphic right above Mr McLean's analysis helpfully demonstrates that at least 5% of the voters who claimed in the last poll in February that they had already firmly decided how to vote have changed their minds since! And that change isn't some kind of mirage caused by an increase in the proportion of the electorate that has reached a decision - in fact the number of respondents who say they have decided has fallen from 567 in February to 558 now. So while the 'definitely decided' question may be moderately useful in distinguishing 'softer' voters from 'firmer' voters, the reality is that responses to that question can't be taken quite as literally as Mr McLean seems to believe - many of those 'firmer' voters remain up for grabs.
The recent YouGov poll commissioned by the SNP offers another way of looking at the underlying state of play. Respondents were asked if they'd be more or less likely to vote Yes - or if it would make no difference either way - if they were persuaded that independence would make Scotland fairer and wealthier. The combined total for those who claim to have already decided to vote No, and those who perversely would be less likely to vote Yes if they anticipated greater fairness and wealth, is 45%. The combined total for those who claim to have already decided to vote Yes, and those who would be more likely to vote Yes in the specified scenario (and who can therefore be assumed to at least be consciously open to the idea of voting for independence), is 47%. So that demonstrates a clear potential route to a narrow victory - if Yes Scotland run the perfect campaign. In reality there probably isn't such a thing as the perfect campaign, which means that at least some of the people who currently think they are firm No voters will need to be converted. But the fluidity detected by Ipsos-Mori in the supposedly 'already decided' group suggests that is perfectly doable. With a year and a half to go, there's all to play for.
* * *
One point that will presumably be of some concern to the anti-independence campaign is that their figurehead Alistair Darling now has an outright negative personal rating - and that's in spite of the fact that he doesn't even have any ministerial responsibilities that might be making him unpopular. What can he possibly be doing so wrong? Could it be that his relentless negativity is beginning to wear thin on the public?
Thursday, May 9, 2013
"You're an idiot - now go and play with something sharp" says the No campaign's champion of courteous discourse
I realise there's a slight danger of turning this blog into one long transcription of my exchanges on Twitter, and I'll try not to make too much of a habit of it, but as so many of us have had encounters with Duncan Hothersall over the years, I thought you might appreciate this one. For the uninitiated, Duncan was for quite some time practically the one-man online presence of Scottish Labour. Yes, even in the days when Labour Hame was but a twinkle in its Admin's eye, there was Duncan, fighting the good (or goodish) fight on Twitter. More recently, he's taken to sternly shaking his head at the largely mythical "Cybernat hordes", more in sorrow than in anger, and exhorting them to at least aspire to his own standards of decency. Rather like Matt Smith begging the humans not to harm the Silurian hostage, Duncan just yearns with all his heart for his hot-headed, misguided political opponents to be "better than this" - for the sake of their own souls as much as anything.
In the unlikely event that anyone took the nurturing tone of his 'advice' at face value, I fear that what you're about to read might be a bit like that moment when you first discovered there isn't a Santa Claus.
Duncan Hothersall : How is UKgov involved? Salmond wants to debate Cameron to make it look like they are the enemy.
Me : Salmond v Cameron is the choice of Prime Ministers in #indyref
Duncan Hothersall : Which is a bollocks argument and you know it.
Me : I knew you'd like it, because it has the virtue of being self-evidently true.
Duncan Hothersall : It's the ultimate expression of the false idea that #indyref is an election substitute. Current leaders irrelevant.
Me : Like Tony Blair was "irrelevant" in 2005 because he saw out less than half a term? Same principle.
Duncan Hothersall : UK elections don't pick Prime Ministers they chose governing parties. #indyref is nothing to do with either.
Me : So why do we have "Prime Ministerial (sic) Debates" in UK elections?
Duncan Hothersall : I think I have a new favourite idiotic #yesscot argument: Salmond should debate Cameron because #indyref is a choice between them as PMs.
Me : Glad you like it, but do you actually have an answer to the Prime Ministerial Debate point?
Duncan Hothersall : We had them precisely once. Are you even going to pretend you don't understand our democracy to score points? Sad.
Me : Does that mean you oppose them, Duncan? This is important.
Duncan Hothersall : Yes. Our democracy works on the basis of law, not TV programmes, and you know that fine well.
Me : So you do oppose such debates? Fair enough. On that issue and Trident, I just wish you had more sway with your own party.
Duncan Hothersall : Do you really think #indyref is a choice between Salmond and Cameron as PM? How about we clear that up first.
Me : I thought we just had cleared it up, but evidently I've missed something. Answer to your question - obviously.
Duncan Hothersall : Then you're an idiot.
Me : Ah, the famed positivity and civility of the No campaign on social media!
Duncan Hothersall : I'm being neither negative nor uncivil. Your stated position is idiocy. It's stupid.
Me : "You're an idiot." That's a quote. Bit of a stretch to say that's "neither negative nor uncivil".
Duncan Hothersall : It's an observation. Now go and play with something sharp.
Me : Hmmm. While I do that, Duncan, why don't you quietly reflect on whether you practise what you preach on standards of debate.
Duncan Hothersall : Let me just file that advice for safekeeping. It's a gem.
Me : Feel free. I'll certainly be filing the "idiot" and "play with something sharp" comments for when you next mention Cybernats.
In the unlikely event that anyone took the nurturing tone of his 'advice' at face value, I fear that what you're about to read might be a bit like that moment when you first discovered there isn't a Santa Claus.
Duncan Hothersall : How is UKgov involved? Salmond wants to debate Cameron to make it look like they are the enemy.
Me : Salmond v Cameron is the choice of Prime Ministers in #indyref
Duncan Hothersall : Which is a bollocks argument and you know it.
Me : I knew you'd like it, because it has the virtue of being self-evidently true.
Duncan Hothersall : It's the ultimate expression of the false idea that #indyref is an election substitute. Current leaders irrelevant.
Me : Like Tony Blair was "irrelevant" in 2005 because he saw out less than half a term? Same principle.
Duncan Hothersall : UK elections don't pick Prime Ministers they chose governing parties. #indyref is nothing to do with either.
Me : So why do we have "Prime Ministerial (sic) Debates" in UK elections?
Duncan Hothersall : I think I have a new favourite idiotic #yesscot argument: Salmond should debate Cameron because #indyref is a choice between them as PMs.
Me : Glad you like it, but do you actually have an answer to the Prime Ministerial Debate point?
Duncan Hothersall : We had them precisely once. Are you even going to pretend you don't understand our democracy to score points? Sad.
Me : Does that mean you oppose them, Duncan? This is important.
Duncan Hothersall : Yes. Our democracy works on the basis of law, not TV programmes, and you know that fine well.
Me : So you do oppose such debates? Fair enough. On that issue and Trident, I just wish you had more sway with your own party.
Duncan Hothersall : Do you really think #indyref is a choice between Salmond and Cameron as PM? How about we clear that up first.
Me : I thought we just had cleared it up, but evidently I've missed something. Answer to your question - obviously.
Duncan Hothersall : Then you're an idiot.
Me : Ah, the famed positivity and civility of the No campaign on social media!
Duncan Hothersall : I'm being neither negative nor uncivil. Your stated position is idiocy. It's stupid.
Me : "You're an idiot." That's a quote. Bit of a stretch to say that's "neither negative nor uncivil".
Duncan Hothersall : It's an observation. Now go and play with something sharp.
Me : Hmmm. While I do that, Duncan, why don't you quietly reflect on whether you practise what you preach on standards of debate.
Duncan Hothersall : Let me just file that advice for safekeeping. It's a gem.
Me : Feel free. I'll certainly be filing the "idiot" and "play with something sharp" comments for when you next mention Cybernats.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Does James Mackenzie have a problem with alternative points of view?
James Mackenzie, the supremo of the Better Nation blog, has in a somewhat haughty (and not exactly unprecedented) manner declared that he cannot bear to continue a Twitter discussion with me that he himself initiated, solely on the grounds that I failed to concur with his own point of view. I'll repost the exchange in full here and let it speak for itself, but there are a number of things that I find utterly dumbfounding about it. Firstly, there's the automatic assumption on two separate occasions that because I didn't agree with a radical feminist text/video that he directed me to, that I must not have bothered to read/watch it. It literally doesn't even occur to him that it's possible for someone to listen to radical feminist arguments in good faith and not be persuaded by them. Then there's the apparent belief that disagreeing with radical feminism is the equivalent of racism, and can be characterised as "radical sexism". As I said at the time, it's hard to think of a more Orwellian use of language than to accuse the people who DON'T think there is any difference between male and female victims of being the "sexists"!
I really do think the way in which James brought this exchange to an end is incredibly revealing of the mindset that lies behind Better Nation's notoriously unpredictable - and occasionally suffocating - moderation policy. One useful thing to come out of this is that we now know that Jenny Kemp wasn't responsible for the deletion of JPJ2's perfectly legitimate comment on her BN thread about violence against women. My guess is that it may have been James himself and he's simply forgotten, but we'll probably never know.
James Mackenzie : (in response to this blogpost of a couple of days ago) Having moderated comments for @nationbetter, and despite being passionately pro-Yes, I do see much more hate on "our" side.
Me : Given that you moderate comments for being "otherwise dickish", I take that observation with a pinch of salt.
James Mackenzie : But I'm specifically talking about dickish comments amongst others - not sure how your comment relates to the balance thereof?
Me : The point I'm making is that the approach you take to moderation at Better Nation often IS the problem. "Otherwise dickish"?
James Mackenzie : What makes you say that? How do dickish comments, especially ad hominem, improve the debate?
Me : The absolute worst thing for the debate is heavy-handed, unbalanced moderation. A "good debate" isn't you silencing people.
James Mackenzie : What makes you think it's unbalanced? I can assure you it's nothing of the sort. Where's this coming from?
Me : I've seen examples of comments that didn't get through moderation on BN, where there was no conceivable justification to delete.
James Mackenzie : By all means show me examples of what you mean. I've got a complete record in my email of everything ever submitted.
Me : If you give me half an hour I probably can. Someone posted one on my blog a while back.
James Mackenzie : Excellent, I'd rather get this away from unsubstantiated allegations!
Me : OK, here's what I had in mind. A comment by JPJ2 that took issue with Jenny Kemp.
James Mackenzie : I'd have probably let that through, but it's much more problematic than it looks: (at this point he directs me to a post on a radical feminist blog that offers a convoluted ideological justification for the silencing of alternative points of view)
Me : So you might - just might - have blocked that comment because it's at variance with your own ideology, which others dispute?
James Mackenzie : I'd have probably let one comment of that sort through, replied with that link, and said I intended to block others.
James Mackenzie : Do you accept that that specific argument is a regular tool used to derail consideration of violence against women, though?
Me : James, are you seriously suggesting that everyone has to buy into key tenets of radical feminism before they are fit to debate?
James Mackenzie : No, I asked you a specific question about your personal view about the way the "what about teh menz" argument gets used.
Me : This is ludicrous. This is exactly what I mean. "Otherwise dickish" is code for "doesn't accept the premise of my ideology".
James Mackenzie : No, it's a genuine query. Do you accept that that particular rhetorical approach regularly derails discussions about violence?!
James Mackenzie : Feel free to say "no, it doesn't", but if you thought it did, what would you do? Let another discussion get derailed?
Me : I don't. I believe in free debate, not silencing people on purely ideological grounds.
James Mackenzie : I mean, if there are better ways to deal with that problem, great, but I'm sure it's a real problem. And yes, I'm a feminist.
Me : Dealing with what "problem"? That people, in a civilised way, take a different view on the subject to you?
James Mackenzie : So you'd accept long screeds about the inferiority of other races on your blog?
James Mackenzie : Just checking: have you read the piece I linked to? That sets out the problem. More here. (at this point he directs me to a Google search for the cretinous and belittling phrase "what about teh menz")
Me : Probably - I'd argue rather than delete. Are you now suggesting that disagreeing with radical feminism is comparable to racism?
James Mackenzie : Fair enough. I'm saying that radical sexism and radical racism are quite similar, that's all.
Me : Yes, I've read it multiple times, and the first time was ages ago. I profoundly disagree with it. Is that allowed?
Me : What is "radical sexism"? The view that domestic violence of men is the same as domestic violence of women? I'm bemused.
James Mackenzie : Of course. Just as it's permitted for people to disagree with race equality. And to publish whatever comments they like.
Me : Sure. You pontificate on what other people do, so I'm just letting you know what I think about your ideological moderation.
James Mackenzie : One of those irregular verbs: "I let you know what I think", "you pontificate", etc.
Me : Do grammatical offences fall under the catch-all "otherwise dickish" category?
James Mackenzie : No, just noting a bit of skewed language. I'd have let that through ;)
Jenny Kemp : I just happened on this conversation. Just want to clarify I had no moderation rights on the blog I wrote for BN.
Me : Thanks, Jenny. Perhaps BN ought to make clear who is doing the moderating on any given thread to avoid confusion.
Jenny Kemp : Sounds wise. I had no idea there were comments submitted but not published. Not nice to be accused of silencing...
James Mackenzie : Author or whoever posted a guest post leads, does uncontroversial stuff, the rest goes round by email. No mystery.
Jenny Kemp : I didn't have any moderation rights on that thread. Unless I am remembering it wrong - but pretty sure.
James Mackenzie : Just out of curiosity, would you have approved a comment likely to turn the discussion into "what about teh menz"?
Jenny Kemp : probably because otherwise you're accused of silencing that argument!
James Mackenzie : Although we did publish a marginally better version of the same argument from the same person.
Me : Pictish Beastie also complained of having a post deleted in that thread, James.
James Mackenzie : I have found it. It alleges bias on @jennykemp's part in a pretty unpleasant way. We moderate attacks on guests more than on us.
Jenny Kemp : glad that one didn't make it through then.
Me : I haven't seen it, but I'm a tad sceptical of these judgement calls (ie. "pretty unpleasant") based on what you said yesterday.
James Mackenzie : Oh, it's entirely subjective. But my original point stands: I see much harsher language from my side vs the No side.
Me : Yes, it is highly subjective. Which is another way of saying that your point only stands in your opinion.
James Mackenzie : Ah, I meant "what's unpleasant" is subjective. I have no doubt you could double-blind the comments and see what scores worst.
Me : I think that would be a very useful exercise one of these days - and it's possible you'd be shocked by the outcome.
Doug Daniel : hasn't something similar already been done by a university that found it's actually unionists who are the worst?
Wings over Scotland : Mark Shephard at Strathclyde.
James Mackenzie : {citation required} ;)
James Mackenzie : Also, I have no idea what the cross-blogosphere average is, I'm just going by all the BN comments.
James Mackenzie : James, you might find this interesting. (at this point he directs me to this radical feminist video)
Me : When will we see "human beings speaking out against domestic violence, irrespective of the victim's gender"?
James Mackenzie : Are you agreeing or disagreeing with his argument there?
Me : That self-styled "anti-sexist activist" is in truth profoundly sexist, as is your Orwellian notion of "radical sexism".
Me : I'm disagreeing with it. I thought that was fairly obvious!
James Mackenzie : Not really. He talks about violence against other men and boys too.
Me : Is there any reference to female-on-male violence?
James Mackenzie : You've not watched it. I give up: let's not speak again. It probably frustrates you as much as it does me.
Me : Jesus, man. I spent twenty painful minutes watching that on your request. The least you can do is engage.
James Mackenzie : So why ask me what was in the film? Did you appreciate any of it, then, or was it all some kind of misandric plot?
Me : I asked you because I thought there was a possibility - however remote - that I might have missed something vital.
Me : I just don't agree with the premise of it. I'm surprised you thought for a moment that I would.
James Mackenzie : I'm genuinely surprised that anyone could ignore the strength of his argument. I don't see how we find common ground.
Me : This is what I don't understand, James. Do you think "debate" ought to be others seeking common ground with you?
James Mackenzie : Not with me per se. Starting any debate surely means aiming to understand each other's argument as a first basis?
Me : Yes, but understanding it is not the same as accepting it. You seem offended that I don't accept your worldview.
Me : Or is the offence that it's possible to understand it without agreeing with it?
James Mackenzie : I admit I don't understand how anyone can look at violence against women in the way you do. Let's not discuss more.
Me : Why not? Because you must remain in a closed world, sealed off from other views? Explains BN moderation.
* * *
UPDATE : Predictably (again this is not exactly unprecedented) James Mackenzie unfollowed me on Twitter the moment he saw this post. Oh well, at least now I can follow suit and dispense with Twitter updates branded with the mildly disturbing 'dog smoking a pipe' image!
UPDATE II : And now he's going around calling me a "misogynist". Well, we may as well be treated to the full repertoire...
I really do think the way in which James brought this exchange to an end is incredibly revealing of the mindset that lies behind Better Nation's notoriously unpredictable - and occasionally suffocating - moderation policy. One useful thing to come out of this is that we now know that Jenny Kemp wasn't responsible for the deletion of JPJ2's perfectly legitimate comment on her BN thread about violence against women. My guess is that it may have been James himself and he's simply forgotten, but we'll probably never know.
James Mackenzie : (in response to this blogpost of a couple of days ago) Having moderated comments for @nationbetter, and despite being passionately pro-Yes, I do see much more hate on "our" side.
Me : Given that you moderate comments for being "otherwise dickish", I take that observation with a pinch of salt.
James Mackenzie : But I'm specifically talking about dickish comments amongst others - not sure how your comment relates to the balance thereof?
Me : The point I'm making is that the approach you take to moderation at Better Nation often IS the problem. "Otherwise dickish"?
James Mackenzie : What makes you say that? How do dickish comments, especially ad hominem, improve the debate?
Me : The absolute worst thing for the debate is heavy-handed, unbalanced moderation. A "good debate" isn't you silencing people.
James Mackenzie : What makes you think it's unbalanced? I can assure you it's nothing of the sort. Where's this coming from?
Me : I've seen examples of comments that didn't get through moderation on BN, where there was no conceivable justification to delete.
James Mackenzie : By all means show me examples of what you mean. I've got a complete record in my email of everything ever submitted.
Me : If you give me half an hour I probably can. Someone posted one on my blog a while back.
James Mackenzie : Excellent, I'd rather get this away from unsubstantiated allegations!
Me : OK, here's what I had in mind. A comment by JPJ2 that took issue with Jenny Kemp.
James Mackenzie : I'd have probably let that through, but it's much more problematic than it looks: (at this point he directs me to a post on a radical feminist blog that offers a convoluted ideological justification for the silencing of alternative points of view)
Me : So you might - just might - have blocked that comment because it's at variance with your own ideology, which others dispute?
James Mackenzie : I'd have probably let one comment of that sort through, replied with that link, and said I intended to block others.
James Mackenzie : Do you accept that that specific argument is a regular tool used to derail consideration of violence against women, though?
Me : James, are you seriously suggesting that everyone has to buy into key tenets of radical feminism before they are fit to debate?
James Mackenzie : No, I asked you a specific question about your personal view about the way the "what about teh menz" argument gets used.
Me : This is ludicrous. This is exactly what I mean. "Otherwise dickish" is code for "doesn't accept the premise of my ideology".
James Mackenzie : No, it's a genuine query. Do you accept that that particular rhetorical approach regularly derails discussions about violence?!
James Mackenzie : Feel free to say "no, it doesn't", but if you thought it did, what would you do? Let another discussion get derailed?
Me : I don't. I believe in free debate, not silencing people on purely ideological grounds.
James Mackenzie : I mean, if there are better ways to deal with that problem, great, but I'm sure it's a real problem. And yes, I'm a feminist.
Me : Dealing with what "problem"? That people, in a civilised way, take a different view on the subject to you?
James Mackenzie : So you'd accept long screeds about the inferiority of other races on your blog?
James Mackenzie : Just checking: have you read the piece I linked to? That sets out the problem. More here. (at this point he directs me to a Google search for the cretinous and belittling phrase "what about teh menz")
Me : Probably - I'd argue rather than delete. Are you now suggesting that disagreeing with radical feminism is comparable to racism?
James Mackenzie : Fair enough. I'm saying that radical sexism and radical racism are quite similar, that's all.
Me : Yes, I've read it multiple times, and the first time was ages ago. I profoundly disagree with it. Is that allowed?
Me : What is "radical sexism"? The view that domestic violence of men is the same as domestic violence of women? I'm bemused.
James Mackenzie : Of course. Just as it's permitted for people to disagree with race equality. And to publish whatever comments they like.
Me : Sure. You pontificate on what other people do, so I'm just letting you know what I think about your ideological moderation.
James Mackenzie : One of those irregular verbs: "I let you know what I think", "you pontificate", etc.
Me : Do grammatical offences fall under the catch-all "otherwise dickish" category?
James Mackenzie : No, just noting a bit of skewed language. I'd have let that through ;)
Jenny Kemp : I just happened on this conversation. Just want to clarify I had no moderation rights on the blog I wrote for BN.
Me : Thanks, Jenny. Perhaps BN ought to make clear who is doing the moderating on any given thread to avoid confusion.
Jenny Kemp : Sounds wise. I had no idea there were comments submitted but not published. Not nice to be accused of silencing...
James Mackenzie : Author or whoever posted a guest post leads, does uncontroversial stuff, the rest goes round by email. No mystery.
Jenny Kemp : I didn't have any moderation rights on that thread. Unless I am remembering it wrong - but pretty sure.
James Mackenzie : Just out of curiosity, would you have approved a comment likely to turn the discussion into "what about teh menz"?
Jenny Kemp : probably because otherwise you're accused of silencing that argument!
James Mackenzie : Although we did publish a marginally better version of the same argument from the same person.
Me : Pictish Beastie also complained of having a post deleted in that thread, James.
James Mackenzie : I have found it. It alleges bias on @jennykemp's part in a pretty unpleasant way. We moderate attacks on guests more than on us.
Jenny Kemp : glad that one didn't make it through then.
Me : I haven't seen it, but I'm a tad sceptical of these judgement calls (ie. "pretty unpleasant") based on what you said yesterday.
James Mackenzie : Oh, it's entirely subjective. But my original point stands: I see much harsher language from my side vs the No side.
Me : Yes, it is highly subjective. Which is another way of saying that your point only stands in your opinion.
James Mackenzie : Ah, I meant "what's unpleasant" is subjective. I have no doubt you could double-blind the comments and see what scores worst.
Me : I think that would be a very useful exercise one of these days - and it's possible you'd be shocked by the outcome.
Doug Daniel : hasn't something similar already been done by a university that found it's actually unionists who are the worst?
Wings over Scotland : Mark Shephard at Strathclyde.
James Mackenzie : {citation required} ;)
James Mackenzie : Also, I have no idea what the cross-blogosphere average is, I'm just going by all the BN comments.
James Mackenzie : James, you might find this interesting. (at this point he directs me to this radical feminist video)
Me : When will we see "human beings speaking out against domestic violence, irrespective of the victim's gender"?
James Mackenzie : Are you agreeing or disagreeing with his argument there?
Me : That self-styled "anti-sexist activist" is in truth profoundly sexist, as is your Orwellian notion of "radical sexism".
Me : I'm disagreeing with it. I thought that was fairly obvious!
James Mackenzie : Not really. He talks about violence against other men and boys too.
Me : Is there any reference to female-on-male violence?
James Mackenzie : You've not watched it. I give up: let's not speak again. It probably frustrates you as much as it does me.
Me : Jesus, man. I spent twenty painful minutes watching that on your request. The least you can do is engage.
James Mackenzie : So why ask me what was in the film? Did you appreciate any of it, then, or was it all some kind of misandric plot?
Me : I asked you because I thought there was a possibility - however remote - that I might have missed something vital.
Me : I just don't agree with the premise of it. I'm surprised you thought for a moment that I would.
James Mackenzie : I'm genuinely surprised that anyone could ignore the strength of his argument. I don't see how we find common ground.
Me : This is what I don't understand, James. Do you think "debate" ought to be others seeking common ground with you?
James Mackenzie : Not with me per se. Starting any debate surely means aiming to understand each other's argument as a first basis?
Me : Yes, but understanding it is not the same as accepting it. You seem offended that I don't accept your worldview.
Me : Or is the offence that it's possible to understand it without agreeing with it?
James Mackenzie : I admit I don't understand how anyone can look at violence against women in the way you do. Let's not discuss more.
Me : Why not? Because you must remain in a closed world, sealed off from other views? Explains BN moderation.
* * *
UPDATE : Predictably (again this is not exactly unprecedented) James Mackenzie unfollowed me on Twitter the moment he saw this post. Oh well, at least now I can follow suit and dispense with Twitter updates branded with the mildly disturbing 'dog smoking a pipe' image!
UPDATE II : And now he's going around calling me a "misogynist". Well, we may as well be treated to the full repertoire...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)