I've just been having a peek at Esctoday.com for the first time in many months (for the uninitiated, it's the biggest independent website devoted to the Eurovision Song Contest). I was hoping to find out a little more about the scandal I vaguely heard about a week or two back, concerning a few dozen Azerbaijanis who were tracked down by the authorities and questioned...about why they had picked up the phone and voted for Armenia in the contest in May. Apparently there was nothing unusual or untoward in the request for an explanation. I note that Freedom House currently rates Azerbaijan as 'Not Free' - but surely the country should get special dispensation for only interfering in their citizens' lives on the grounds of dubious musical taste?
Anyway, no obvious sign of that controversy on Esctoday's main page (I'm sure it's there in the archive somewhere), but what I did find instead was a poll to decide the best Eurovision song of the decade, which has now been narrowed down to a grand final of 24. Rather refreshingly to my eyes, it's not a million miles away from a shortlist I might have drawn up myself - the two big omissions being Once in a Lifetime by Ines (Estonia 2000) and the brilliant If I Had Your Love by Selma (Iceland 2005). The absence of the former can probably be put down to the passage of time, and the latter perhaps never had a chance due to the ropey live performance which saw the song crash out unexpectedly at the semi-final stage. However, another song that met the same fate, Je t'adore by Kate Ryan (Belgium 2006) does make the cut. I'm delighted because it's one of my two all-time favourites - the other being the enchanting Icelandic ballad, Is it True?, that finished second in Moscow this year. So who to vote for? Looks like I've still got time to ponder that one.
Although I do wonder what a certain Irish Eurovision enthusiast, a man with no little pride in his unerring judgement, makes of the list. How on earth did Hold On, Be Strong go from being "clearly the worst song in the contest" in 2008 to being in the running for best song of the decade?
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
The anti-nuclear lobby's trump card?
I saw a bit of the Conservative conference earlier, and in particular a surprisingly thoughtful session in which Sir James Dyson set out the case for a return to a Britain that actually makes things, and Kenneth Baker (who to be honest I'd almost forgotten existed) set out an interesting, but probably thoroughly flawed case for a return to the technical schools that were an original part of Rab Butler's tripartite system of secondary education. I say it was 'thoughtful' partly because, highly unusually, neither man bothered with the conventional conference speech trick of inserting obvious cues for applause, and as a result there was indeed almost no applause. In spite of the slightly sycophantic subsequent cries of "I absolutely agree with James Dyson" (and to be fair he has apparently nailed his colours firmly to the Tory mast), Dyson was from beginning to end trying to get his own personal message across, and said a number of things a Conservative audience could - and perhaps ought - to have been quite uncomfortable with. There was, for instance, a little jibe about the British nuclear deterrent actually being American, and also something about the rot first setting in for Britain in 1904 - hardly sounds like an indictment of Labour rule only.
But what really caught my attention was that one of the very few rounds of applause that either man received came in response to Kenneth Baker's cry of "why should a new generation of British nuclear power plants be built by French engineers?". Could the anti-nuclear lobby (in England and Wales, I mean) just have located their get-out-of-jail-free card, in the unlikely guise of Tory Euroscepticism? Probably not, but then any chink of light is better than nothing.
'Joke of the Day' (well, I was only watching for half-an-hour) - David Willetts revealed that there will be a surge of university applications next year, as the result of a mini baby-boom in 1992. "Now we know how people celebrated our election victory that year," was the punchline. Hmmm. Leaving aside the poignant question of whether there was actually anything to celebrate, wasn't the 1992 election held on April 9th? The man they call "Two Brains" can't possibly have slipped up on his mental arithmetic, so I can only assume there were an awful lot of premature births in 1992...
But what really caught my attention was that one of the very few rounds of applause that either man received came in response to Kenneth Baker's cry of "why should a new generation of British nuclear power plants be built by French engineers?". Could the anti-nuclear lobby (in England and Wales, I mean) just have located their get-out-of-jail-free card, in the unlikely guise of Tory Euroscepticism? Probably not, but then any chink of light is better than nothing.
'Joke of the Day' (well, I was only watching for half-an-hour) - David Willetts revealed that there will be a surge of university applications next year, as the result of a mini baby-boom in 1992. "Now we know how people celebrated our election victory that year," was the punchline. Hmmm. Leaving aside the poignant question of whether there was actually anything to celebrate, wasn't the 1992 election held on April 9th? The man they call "Two Brains" can't possibly have slipped up on his mental arithmetic, so I can only assume there were an awful lot of premature births in 1992...
Sunday, October 4, 2009
A full and equal partner
Further to my last post, it seems David Maddox at the Steamie has got a distinctly odd definition of the word ‘sinister’. If he thinks a political party demanding fair coverage in an election campaign is sinister, he should try imagining Peter Mandelson creeping up on him when he’s asleep, taking a DNA swab and then whispering in his ear “don’t worry, David, if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear”.
Maddox it seems to me, rather like the posters I encountered a few weeks ago, is so completely locked into a one-dimensional London-centric world view that he’s failed to see the SNP’s demand for what it actually is. They mean what they say, they do actually want to be part of the debates! But to Maddox, that is simply demanding the ‘impossible’, therefore it is tantamount to calling for a ban, and denying the poor Scottish public the right to watch their three (ahem) potential Prime Ministers in action. (Actually, I think they might be rather relieved to end up with a hastily-arranged repeat of Taggart instead.)
Point 1 – if Gordon Brown had been planning to debate Nick Clegg, and Nick Clegg only, on primetime TV in an election campaign, David Cameron would have demanded his right to be included. If the simple principle of fair coverage had not won the day, the Conservatives would undoubtedly have gone to court to seek redress. This would have been an action of last resort and a perfectly understandable one. So why should the SNP’s stance be seen any differently, when in the 59 constituencies of Scotland they compete on an (at least) equal basis with the three parties that Maddox seems to feel have an in-built right to bonus coverage?
Point 2 – why is fair coverage for the SNP in the debates ‘impossible’? It seems to me Maddox is simply guilty of a failure of imagination here. There are two possible solutions. Firstly, yes, Alex Salmond (or Angus Robertson) could simply be permitted to participate in debates shown throughout the UK - in practice this would probably mean only in some of the debates, with Plaid Cymru taking part in others. If Maddox can't conceive of such a thing happening, I'd point him in the direction of Canada. In the general election there last year (and presumably the same will be the case in the election about to take place) the Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe took part in the Canada-wide leaders' debates on an absolutely equal basis, in spite of the fact that his party only contests 25% of the seats. Why would the broadcasters there permit such a thing? Presumably because they take seriously their responsibilities to ensure fair and balanced coverage within Quebec. Furthermore, there is a precedent right here in the UK - in the 2005 general election, there were hour long leaders' specials on ITV that were broadcast throughout the UK. And there were four of them, not three. The first was divided between Alex Salmond and Ieuan Wyn Jones - an eminently fair and sensible arrangement.
The second solution however is simply to have Scotland-specific debates - which would be shown instead of, not in addition to, the debates shown in England. I'm not talking about mickey mouse debates featuring Jim Murphy, Michael Moore and David Mundell. I mean proper, full-scale debates featuring the leaders of the four main parties contesting seats in Scotland - Alex Salmond, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg. Oh, wait a moment, what's this new objection, David? The London leaders simply can't be expected to find the time, or it would be beneath their dignity? Well, doesn't that say something about their attitude to Scotland, this 'full and equal partner' in our United Kingdom.
Maddox it seems to me, rather like the posters I encountered a few weeks ago, is so completely locked into a one-dimensional London-centric world view that he’s failed to see the SNP’s demand for what it actually is. They mean what they say, they do actually want to be part of the debates! But to Maddox, that is simply demanding the ‘impossible’, therefore it is tantamount to calling for a ban, and denying the poor Scottish public the right to watch their three (ahem) potential Prime Ministers in action. (Actually, I think they might be rather relieved to end up with a hastily-arranged repeat of Taggart instead.)
Point 1 – if Gordon Brown had been planning to debate Nick Clegg, and Nick Clegg only, on primetime TV in an election campaign, David Cameron would have demanded his right to be included. If the simple principle of fair coverage had not won the day, the Conservatives would undoubtedly have gone to court to seek redress. This would have been an action of last resort and a perfectly understandable one. So why should the SNP’s stance be seen any differently, when in the 59 constituencies of Scotland they compete on an (at least) equal basis with the three parties that Maddox seems to feel have an in-built right to bonus coverage?
Point 2 – why is fair coverage for the SNP in the debates ‘impossible’? It seems to me Maddox is simply guilty of a failure of imagination here. There are two possible solutions. Firstly, yes, Alex Salmond (or Angus Robertson) could simply be permitted to participate in debates shown throughout the UK - in practice this would probably mean only in some of the debates, with Plaid Cymru taking part in others. If Maddox can't conceive of such a thing happening, I'd point him in the direction of Canada. In the general election there last year (and presumably the same will be the case in the election about to take place) the Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe took part in the Canada-wide leaders' debates on an absolutely equal basis, in spite of the fact that his party only contests 25% of the seats. Why would the broadcasters there permit such a thing? Presumably because they take seriously their responsibilities to ensure fair and balanced coverage within Quebec. Furthermore, there is a precedent right here in the UK - in the 2005 general election, there were hour long leaders' specials on ITV that were broadcast throughout the UK. And there were four of them, not three. The first was divided between Alex Salmond and Ieuan Wyn Jones - an eminently fair and sensible arrangement.
The second solution however is simply to have Scotland-specific debates - which would be shown instead of, not in addition to, the debates shown in England. I'm not talking about mickey mouse debates featuring Jim Murphy, Michael Moore and David Mundell. I mean proper, full-scale debates featuring the leaders of the four main parties contesting seats in Scotland - Alex Salmond, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg. Oh, wait a moment, what's this new objection, David? The London leaders simply can't be expected to find the time, or it would be beneath their dignity? Well, doesn't that say something about their attitude to Scotland, this 'full and equal partner' in our United Kingdom.
A question of simple fairness
Just over a month ago, I got embroiled in a mild stooshie over at PoliticalBetting.com that trundled on for so long it almost rivalled my delightful encounter with the Kevin Baker Fan Club. (Well, perhaps not.) It began when I suggested that any political leaders’ debate that is televised in Scotland in a general election campaign must, as a simple matter of fairness, include the leaders of all four major parties in Scotland, not merely three of the four as the broadcasters seem to be proposing. This would, of course, be fully in line with the long-established principle that we see applied to Party Election Broadcasts in Scotland, where all four parties receive fair broadcasting time, not just the three London-based parties.
I was of course fully prepared for the fact that my suggestion was, to put it mildly, unlikely to attract broad support on PB.com, which is after all a heavily Conservative-dominated forum. What did startle me, however, was the utter incredulity that my comment provoked. Many posters seemed to struggle to understand (or perhaps they were determined not to) the rather simple proposition I was putting forward. “What, you think the SNP can ban the British public from watching a British debate?” was a frequent disbelieving response. No, I tried to explain patiently, I merely think that any debate shown in Scotland should feature the leaders of all four parties, and if the broadcasters fail to adhere to this obviously fair principle, the debate should not be screened in Scotland. If needs be, I added, the SNP would most certainly take legal action to ensure this was the case – a suggestion that provoked a degree of mirth. A self-styled ‘expert’ (I’m not quite sure on what) popped up to assure me I didn’t have a clue what I was talking about. I reminded him that the complacent ‘experts’ in London had been, to put it mildly, somewhat stunned by a Scottish court’s decision to ban the screening of an interview with John Major a week before local elections in 1995. They had been similarly stunned by the ruling in the run-up to the 2000 Falkirk West by-election that ITV’s programme ‘Ask the Prime Minister’ had breached the requirement for fair coverage of all parties.
Still the airy dismissals continued unabated. “I think you’ll find the broadcasters are planning debates for the Scottish party leaders” a number said, with a tone of ‘well that’s dealt with that, let’s move on’. Yes, I replied – additional debates, which can’t possibly balance out the SNP’s exclusion from the main debates. “What, are you actually saying that Alex Salmond should be debating Brown and Cameron?” I was asked incredulously. Er, yes, of course that’s what I’m saying. And at that point, naturally, we arrived at the last, faithful line of defence – “the main debates are only for the leaders who actually have a chance of becoming Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,” a number of posters sniffed. What, like Nick Clegg? “Yes, because the Liberal Democrats contest seats across the United Kingdom, so in theory he has the chance to become Prime Minister.” But the Liberal Democrats do no such thing, and nor do the Labour party – neither contest seats in Northern Ireland. If this is supposed to be a debate for the leaders of parties who contest seats across the United Kingdom, we’re all going to be watching a David Cameron monologue. “Well, they contest far more seats than the SNP anyway. Do you think an SNP leader is going to become Prime Minister by contesting 59 seats?” Well, in a parliamentary system, actually yes he could. Parties do not need to win (or contest) a majority of seats to either form a minority government or to form part of a governing coalition. Highly unlikely to happen in the SNP’s case – but if Nick Clegg only needs an ‘in theory’ chance to become PM to qualify for the debate, shouldn’t exactly the same principle apply to the SNP leader? No real response to that question, just increasing murmurs that the whole discussion was becoming rather tiresome.
Well, they’d better get used to it being such a bore, because exactly as I predicted, as soon as debates became a serious prospect last night the SNP indicated that they would take steps to ensure that any debate excluding their leader would not be screened in Scotland. Of course it remains to be seen whether I or the self-styled ‘expert’ will be proved right, but it looks like we might well have our ‘day in court’ to find out one way or the other.
And the UK-wide impact of the debates, should they take place? In 1992, John Major turned down a challenge issued by both Neil Kinnock and Paddy Ashdown to take part in a TV debate, on the grounds that “every leader who expects to lose demands a debate, every leader who expects to win declines the offer”. Given the 1992 result, it seems Major may have had a point. In which case, oddly enough, logic would suggest that the leader playing the riskier game here is David Cameron.
I was of course fully prepared for the fact that my suggestion was, to put it mildly, unlikely to attract broad support on PB.com, which is after all a heavily Conservative-dominated forum. What did startle me, however, was the utter incredulity that my comment provoked. Many posters seemed to struggle to understand (or perhaps they were determined not to) the rather simple proposition I was putting forward. “What, you think the SNP can ban the British public from watching a British debate?” was a frequent disbelieving response. No, I tried to explain patiently, I merely think that any debate shown in Scotland should feature the leaders of all four parties, and if the broadcasters fail to adhere to this obviously fair principle, the debate should not be screened in Scotland. If needs be, I added, the SNP would most certainly take legal action to ensure this was the case – a suggestion that provoked a degree of mirth. A self-styled ‘expert’ (I’m not quite sure on what) popped up to assure me I didn’t have a clue what I was talking about. I reminded him that the complacent ‘experts’ in London had been, to put it mildly, somewhat stunned by a Scottish court’s decision to ban the screening of an interview with John Major a week before local elections in 1995. They had been similarly stunned by the ruling in the run-up to the 2000 Falkirk West by-election that ITV’s programme ‘Ask the Prime Minister’ had breached the requirement for fair coverage of all parties.
Still the airy dismissals continued unabated. “I think you’ll find the broadcasters are planning debates for the Scottish party leaders” a number said, with a tone of ‘well that’s dealt with that, let’s move on’. Yes, I replied – additional debates, which can’t possibly balance out the SNP’s exclusion from the main debates. “What, are you actually saying that Alex Salmond should be debating Brown and Cameron?” I was asked incredulously. Er, yes, of course that’s what I’m saying. And at that point, naturally, we arrived at the last, faithful line of defence – “the main debates are only for the leaders who actually have a chance of becoming Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,” a number of posters sniffed. What, like Nick Clegg? “Yes, because the Liberal Democrats contest seats across the United Kingdom, so in theory he has the chance to become Prime Minister.” But the Liberal Democrats do no such thing, and nor do the Labour party – neither contest seats in Northern Ireland. If this is supposed to be a debate for the leaders of parties who contest seats across the United Kingdom, we’re all going to be watching a David Cameron monologue. “Well, they contest far more seats than the SNP anyway. Do you think an SNP leader is going to become Prime Minister by contesting 59 seats?” Well, in a parliamentary system, actually yes he could. Parties do not need to win (or contest) a majority of seats to either form a minority government or to form part of a governing coalition. Highly unlikely to happen in the SNP’s case – but if Nick Clegg only needs an ‘in theory’ chance to become PM to qualify for the debate, shouldn’t exactly the same principle apply to the SNP leader? No real response to that question, just increasing murmurs that the whole discussion was becoming rather tiresome.
Well, they’d better get used to it being such a bore, because exactly as I predicted, as soon as debates became a serious prospect last night the SNP indicated that they would take steps to ensure that any debate excluding their leader would not be screened in Scotland. Of course it remains to be seen whether I or the self-styled ‘expert’ will be proved right, but it looks like we might well have our ‘day in court’ to find out one way or the other.
And the UK-wide impact of the debates, should they take place? In 1992, John Major turned down a challenge issued by both Neil Kinnock and Paddy Ashdown to take part in a TV debate, on the grounds that “every leader who expects to lose demands a debate, every leader who expects to win declines the offer”. Given the 1992 result, it seems Major may have had a point. In which case, oddly enough, logic would suggest that the leader playing the riskier game here is David Cameron.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
YouGov marginals poll shows 9% swing to SNP
A few Scottish Labour hearts must have warmed last night at the early indications of what YouGov's massive (in terms of participants) poll contained, with the headline prediction of a result in Scotland practically identical to the 2005 election. Only four seats were predicted to change hands - admittedly these were all Labour losses. However, the detail of the poll released today paints a dramatically less rosy picture for Labour, and a very positive one for the SNP. Given that sampling was done only in selected marginal constituencies, there are no national vote shares available. However, it is possible to compare the parties' vote share in these constituencies with what happened in 2005. It's pretty much one-way traffic -
SNP up 11
Labour down 8
Conservatives up 1
Liberal Democrats down 6
If we assume a uniform national swing, that puts the SNP just two points behind Labour nationally. And whatever the individual constituency predictions (and YouGov's methodology there has been questioned by some) those figures put Labour perilously close to the territory where they would be in danger of losing a shedload of seats to the SNP.
The truly extraordinary finding (so extraordinary I'm inclined to doubt it slightly) is that the Conservatives - supposedly a party cruising to victory at UK level - are making no headway at all in the Scottish marginals. However, the Liberal Democrats' collapse is no surprise, given the giddy heights they reached in 2005 before foolishly jettisoning their greatest asset Charles Kennedy.
Also unambiguously great news for Plaid Cymru in this poll - a 4% increase in vote share, a 7.6% swing from Labour, and a projected gain of three seats.
SNP up 11
Labour down 8
Conservatives up 1
Liberal Democrats down 6
If we assume a uniform national swing, that puts the SNP just two points behind Labour nationally. And whatever the individual constituency predictions (and YouGov's methodology there has been questioned by some) those figures put Labour perilously close to the territory where they would be in danger of losing a shedload of seats to the SNP.
The truly extraordinary finding (so extraordinary I'm inclined to doubt it slightly) is that the Conservatives - supposedly a party cruising to victory at UK level - are making no headway at all in the Scottish marginals. However, the Liberal Democrats' collapse is no surprise, given the giddy heights they reached in 2005 before foolishly jettisoning their greatest asset Charles Kennedy.
Also unambiguously great news for Plaid Cymru in this poll - a 4% increase in vote share, a 7.6% swing from Labour, and a projected gain of three seats.
Meanwhile, back on Planet Palin...
So in the end I needn't have worried - Obama's stardust didn't even come close to sealing the 2016 Olympics for Chicago. Completely predictable that the President's domestic enemies would try to score points over his part in this failure, but also completely misplaced - from what I can gather about the patterns of voting in the first round, delegates were to some extent voting in informal regional blocs. This placed Chicago at a natural disadvantage, given that the US has fewer natural 'tribal' allies than the other three contenders. But the stage where this political point-scoring goes beyond being merely misplaced and becomes...well, surreal, is the stage at which people start suggesting that Sarah Palin would have had a better chance of convincing the IOC delegates of Chicago's merits than Barack Obama.
The truly scary thing is I think they actually believe it.
Also worthy of note is this startling summary by 'consultant' Bill Mallon of what the rejection of Chicago tells us about the nature of the IOC itself -
"that reveals that they’re so euro-centric and international-centric, it’s ridiculous"
Euro-centric for sending the Olympics to Rio de Janeiro? OK...
But what on earth does 'international-centric' actually mean? From my limited knowledge of Ameri-speak, I can only deduce that it's supposed to mean that the IOC is 'centred' around the 96% of the world's population who live outside the United States. Heaven forbid!
The truly scary thing is I think they actually believe it.
Also worthy of note is this startling summary by 'consultant' Bill Mallon of what the rejection of Chicago tells us about the nature of the IOC itself -
"that reveals that they’re so euro-centric and international-centric, it’s ridiculous"
Euro-centric for sending the Olympics to Rio de Janeiro? OK...
But what on earth does 'international-centric' actually mean? From my limited knowledge of Ameri-speak, I can only deduce that it's supposed to mean that the IOC is 'centred' around the 96% of the world's population who live outside the United States. Heaven forbid!
Friday, October 2, 2009
Winning without stardust
I hadn't even been aware that today was decision day for the 2016 Olympic venue candidates until I caught about two seconds on the news this morning. So I had a quick rummage around on the internet in an attempt to ascertain which city is favourite. The first two results that came up - dated early September - said Tokyo is the favourite. The third and fourth results, from the last day or two, said Chicago is the slight favourite in a very close race, with only Tokyo now thought to be out of the running. That's quite a turnaround in the space of a few weeks, and I can't quite work out how it's happened. The only explanation I can find as to why Tokyo might not be considered suitable is that it's too close geographically to the 2008 host city Beijing - but wasn't that fact already known in early September?
Anyway, perhaps it's wrong of me, but my instinct is to hope that any city but Chicago wins, for two main reasons. The Olympics were held in Los Angeles in 1984, in Atlanta in 1996 - is there some kind of unwritten law that the games have to be held in the US at least once every two decades? Given that no South American city has ever been host, yet another trip to the US really would seem like overkill. My second reason is the sight of Barack Obama arriving in Copenhagen to press the case for Chicago. How is Brazil, Spain or Japan supposed to compete with that kind of stardust? And more to the point, why should they need to? I could never quite understand how Tony Blair supposedly had such an impact in sneaking London's victory four years ago, given that a) London is London regardless of whether it has a PM with a winning smile (yuck), and b) he was never going to be PM in 2012 anyway, so any assurances he offered the delegates were fairly meaningless. (Some would say all Blair assurances were meaningless in any case.)
On the basis that it's South America's 'turn', I'll be keeping my fingers crossed for Rio tonight.
Anyway, perhaps it's wrong of me, but my instinct is to hope that any city but Chicago wins, for two main reasons. The Olympics were held in Los Angeles in 1984, in Atlanta in 1996 - is there some kind of unwritten law that the games have to be held in the US at least once every two decades? Given that no South American city has ever been host, yet another trip to the US really would seem like overkill. My second reason is the sight of Barack Obama arriving in Copenhagen to press the case for Chicago. How is Brazil, Spain or Japan supposed to compete with that kind of stardust? And more to the point, why should they need to? I could never quite understand how Tony Blair supposedly had such an impact in sneaking London's victory four years ago, given that a) London is London regardless of whether it has a PM with a winning smile (yuck), and b) he was never going to be PM in 2012 anyway, so any assurances he offered the delegates were fairly meaningless. (Some would say all Blair assurances were meaningless in any case.)
On the basis that it's South America's 'turn', I'll be keeping my fingers crossed for Rio tonight.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
ComRes : SNP close in on Labour
The ComRes sub-sample a few weeks ago showing a 16-point Labour lead in Scotland was probably an aberration, but for what it's worth the SNP have now slashed that lead to just three. Here are the full figures -
Labour 33% (-8)
SNP 30% (+5)
Conservatives 17% (-)
Liberal Democrats 10% (-7)
Greens 8% (+8)
Others 2% (+2)
ComRes sub-samples need to be taken with an especially large dose of salt, given their pitifully small sample size. I think we can safely assume that the Greens haven't really gone from zero to eight in the space of less than a month!
The big UK-wide stories to emerge from the poll are that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are now level-pegging on 23%, but also that Labour could still have a chance of emerging as the largest party at the next election if they switch leader. Curiously, David Miliband is identified as the potential Labour saviour, with even Jack Straw ahead of Alan Johnson - I'm somewhat dubious on that score!
Labour 33% (-8)
SNP 30% (+5)
Conservatives 17% (-)
Liberal Democrats 10% (-7)
Greens 8% (+8)
Others 2% (+2)
ComRes sub-samples need to be taken with an especially large dose of salt, given their pitifully small sample size. I think we can safely assume that the Greens haven't really gone from zero to eight in the space of less than a month!
The big UK-wide stories to emerge from the poll are that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are now level-pegging on 23%, but also that Labour could still have a chance of emerging as the largest party at the next election if they switch leader. Curiously, David Miliband is identified as the potential Labour saviour, with even Jack Straw ahead of Alan Johnson - I'm somewhat dubious on that score!
No convictions, but very easily flattered
"I have no convictions", ace Jury Team by-election candidate John 'Smeato' Smeaton revealed at his press conference the other day. He didn't mean it quite that way, of course, but the statement could hardly have been more apt, given the startlingly bland non-opinions the man who claims to be ready to "set aboot Westminster" had been offering up to that point. Immigrants have been great for this country, but the system needs to be fairer. In what sense does it need to be fairer? Well, it just needs to be 'fairer all round'. Superb, Smeato - you'll really wipe the floor with us rascals who only want the immigration system to be partly fair. And as for his answer to the query about whether he supports elected select committees...well, it was difficult to escape the conclusion that he was trying to bluff his way out of the awkward fact that he had never previously encountered the term 'select committee'. No shame in that, of course, but I might have expected a 'man of the people' to be unapologetically honest about it.
So why on earth does a man who seemingly believes in nothing (save for the need to dispense the odd 'banjoing' when required) want to enter parliament? The truth is, of course, that this 'independent' candidate is dancing to someone else's tune, whether he realises it or not. And history tells us that Smeato simply can't resist being wanted - it doesn't really matter by whom. How else can we reconcile his cringe-inducing star turn during Gordon Brown's speech at the Labour party conference a couple of years ago with what he's been saying about Labour recently?
The effect of Smeato's intervention is also very difficult to judge at this stage. Assuming he can't win (although unlikelier bandwagons have taken off in the past), my guess is that he would appeal more to natural Labour voters, given his slightly authoritarian instincts (I think that's fair comment). So bad news for Labour, then? Well, not necessarily. For the SNP to have any chance of victory in such unbelievably tough terrain for them, they'd need to be claiming a shedload of precisely those type of natural Labour voters, just as they did in Glasgow East a year ago - they can't afford to see those votes siphoned off to a third candidate.
But one positive effect of Smeato's candidacy - he's finally injected some life into this interminable by-election, which thanks to Labour's refusal to move the writ we seem to have been anticipating since Bruce Forsyth was a lad.
So why on earth does a man who seemingly believes in nothing (save for the need to dispense the odd 'banjoing' when required) want to enter parliament? The truth is, of course, that this 'independent' candidate is dancing to someone else's tune, whether he realises it or not. And history tells us that Smeato simply can't resist being wanted - it doesn't really matter by whom. How else can we reconcile his cringe-inducing star turn during Gordon Brown's speech at the Labour party conference a couple of years ago with what he's been saying about Labour recently?
The effect of Smeato's intervention is also very difficult to judge at this stage. Assuming he can't win (although unlikelier bandwagons have taken off in the past), my guess is that he would appeal more to natural Labour voters, given his slightly authoritarian instincts (I think that's fair comment). So bad news for Labour, then? Well, not necessarily. For the SNP to have any chance of victory in such unbelievably tough terrain for them, they'd need to be claiming a shedload of precisely those type of natural Labour voters, just as they did in Glasgow East a year ago - they can't afford to see those votes siphoned off to a third candidate.
But one positive effect of Smeato's candidacy - he's finally injected some life into this interminable by-election, which thanks to Labour's refusal to move the writ we seem to have been anticipating since Bruce Forsyth was a lad.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Aux armes, citoyens!
Via the Dr Helen blog, I came across yet another vintage example of smug-and-unintentionally-funny American right-wing commentary on life this side of the pond. For your delectation...
"Are we citizens or are we subjects?
It's a civil war of sorts.
The British people are subjects under a constitutional monarchy that provides a titular head of state, who reinforces the relationship between the government and the governed.
The state must take care of its subjects. The British like this...
Citizenship is messier. People have more personal responsibility.
Everyone is equal. People shout down congressmen. How rude.
Subjects are not individuals. Subjects are simply members of a group...
Citizens see people as individuals, and respect those who march to their own drumbeat...
This also explains the affinity a fair portion of the electorate feels for Sarah Palin. She's not a slick politician. She's not an elitist. She's in touch with ordinary life...
Being a citizen is harder than being a subject because it comes with more responsibility...
But it is who we, as a nation, are."
Apart from the highly amusing unspoken suggestion that absolute monarchy and communism are in fact one and the same thing (in which case the Russian Revolution doesn't seem like such a big deal after all), what's wrong with Mr Don Surber's thesis? Let's take it in turn...
1) People in Britain are citizens - a legal fact. If he doesn't believe me, I can show him my passport.
2) The evidence for 'British subjects' being dutifully deferential towards their politicians is, how can I put this...a wee bit thin. Indeed, British politicians don't seem to be altogether shy in shouting each other down, either. Evidently, Mr Surber is not an avid follower of PMQs. And what is this American 'rudeness' of which he speaks? Must be when opposition politicians just give the president forty-seven standing ovations during the State of the Union address instead of eighty-nine. Gosh, that's jolly unsporting, what?
3) To me the definition of an elitist is someone who thinks that the voice of people who are already sitting pretty with health insurance is far more important than the voice of the sixty million who are not insured. The opposite of an elitist is someone who thinks that the disadvantaged in society count for just as much as the advantaged. And, call me eccentric, but that's also the way I interpret the word 'equality'.
But apart from all these trifling points, that whole American 'citizens' versus British 'subjects' thing was really well-conceived, Don.
"Are we citizens or are we subjects?
It's a civil war of sorts.
The British people are subjects under a constitutional monarchy that provides a titular head of state, who reinforces the relationship between the government and the governed.
The state must take care of its subjects. The British like this...
Citizenship is messier. People have more personal responsibility.
Everyone is equal. People shout down congressmen. How rude.
Subjects are not individuals. Subjects are simply members of a group...
Citizens see people as individuals, and respect those who march to their own drumbeat...
This also explains the affinity a fair portion of the electorate feels for Sarah Palin. She's not a slick politician. She's not an elitist. She's in touch with ordinary life...
Being a citizen is harder than being a subject because it comes with more responsibility...
But it is who we, as a nation, are."
Apart from the highly amusing unspoken suggestion that absolute monarchy and communism are in fact one and the same thing (in which case the Russian Revolution doesn't seem like such a big deal after all), what's wrong with Mr Don Surber's thesis? Let's take it in turn...
1) People in Britain are citizens - a legal fact. If he doesn't believe me, I can show him my passport.
2) The evidence for 'British subjects' being dutifully deferential towards their politicians is, how can I put this...a wee bit thin. Indeed, British politicians don't seem to be altogether shy in shouting each other down, either. Evidently, Mr Surber is not an avid follower of PMQs. And what is this American 'rudeness' of which he speaks? Must be when opposition politicians just give the president forty-seven standing ovations during the State of the Union address instead of eighty-nine. Gosh, that's jolly unsporting, what?
3) To me the definition of an elitist is someone who thinks that the voice of people who are already sitting pretty with health insurance is far more important than the voice of the sixty million who are not insured. The opposite of an elitist is someone who thinks that the disadvantaged in society count for just as much as the advantaged. And, call me eccentric, but that's also the way I interpret the word 'equality'.
But apart from all these trifling points, that whole American 'citizens' versus British 'subjects' thing was really well-conceived, Don.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)