Just a very quick postscript to what I wrote on Thursday. Last year I entered into two private bets on the outcome of the independence referendum with a (characteristically delightful) PB Tory calling himself John O'Hersham (not his real name). The first was a £100 bet that Yes would win, and the second was a £50 bet that the No vote would not exceed a 12.5% lead over the Yes vote. Intriguingly, John's sole reaction to my seemingly permanent banning from PB was to anxiously check whether I still regarded those bets as valid - my firm impression is that as a southern Tory he's been lured by the prevailing London media narrative into the delusion that the bets represent free money for him. Frankly, although I wouldn't presume to call the outcome of the referendum itself this far out, my own judgement is that as far as the second bet is concerned the odds lie firmly in my favour.
I was perfectly happy to let him wallow in misplaced complacency for another year and a quarter, but what did trouble me slightly was that in his sunny optimism over the two aforementioned bets, he appeared to have overlooked a third bet we entered into at the same time, which as it happens I have just won - on whether 16 and 17 year olds would have the right to vote in the referendum (or whether "children would be voting", as one of his fellow travellers sneeringly put it). I asked him if he was now prepared to settle that bet. In all honesty I can't say I was entirely surprised that he tried to brazen his way out of it, but the approach he took in doing so was truly breathtaking-
"I am well aware of that without any need of a reminder from you. All our bets will be settled together when the referendum actually takes place."
This was my response -
"Oh really? Who decided that?
It appears that what you are in need of a reminder of is the meaning of the term 'good faith'. There was no agreement between us whatsoever that you had the right to defer settling a lost bet for FIFTEEN MONTHS at your own convenience.
I cannot legally force you to honour this bet, but I expect you to. If you haven't done so within a reasonable timescale (let's say a few weeks) I will be drawing the obvious conclusion about your good faith."
I have also now sent him the following email -
"Hello John,
Just in case you never become aware of this, I have responded to the extraordinary comment you left on my blog this morning.
I do not necessarily expect you to pay up today or tomorrow, but for the avoidance of doubt I do not consider a fifteen or sixteen month delay in settling the bet (or anything even remotely close to that) to be acceptable.
I'll look forward to hearing from you about your preferred method of payment.
Regards,
James"
They say there's honour amongst thieves. But is there honour amongst PB Tories? We'll find out.
* * *
Staying on the subject of votes at 16, this was the verdict of the Electoral Reform Society's Katie Ghose in the Guardian -
"Next year's referendum will be the first test of what happens when young people are given the opportunity to put citizenship education into practice while it is still fresh in their memory. We should not be surprised if this cohort goes on to show higher levels of civic engagement in the future. The danger is that their contemporaries around Britain, and indeed subsequent generations of Scottish young people, fail to match them."
In respect of the latter point, I can only assume Katie must be praying for a Yes vote, because I cannot see any credible chance that future generations of young people will be denied the vote in an independent Scotland, whereas the overwhelming likelihood is that they will continue to be denied the vote if we remain part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it's very hard to understand why anyone who is serious about constitutional and electoral reform (paging the Liberal Democrats) would vote anything but Yes. With independence, you get : votes at 16, an entirely elected national parliament with members voted for by proportional representation, a written constitution, and a cast-iron commitment to membership of the European Union. With the UK, you get : no votes at 16, a semi-unelected national parliament with its elected members voted for by first-past-the-post, no written constitution, and a severe risk of an involuntary departure from the European Union.
* * *
UPDATE : Fair play to John O'Hersham - he's had a change of heart and has now said he is prepared to settle the bet.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Friday, June 28, 2013
Advantage Scotland
It's slightly mind-boggling that YouGov appear to have devoted more effort to tracking public opinion about Andy Murray's national identity than to tracking independence voting intentions (as far as I can see there hasn't been a published YouGov poll on independence VI since 2012!), but for what it's worth the figures on Murray are rather refreshing. This is the perception of the British public as a whole, remember -
Thinking about Andy Murray, do you think of him as a Scottish sportsman or British sportsman?
Scottish 53%
British 35%
Those are fairly astounding figures a year on from the "Oh my God, he's touching OUR flag! Oh my God, he's singing OUR anthem!" moment at the Olympics. I'm not entirely sure about YouGov's spin, though -
"the polling appears to mostly contradict what many have claimed about British attitudes towards the tennis star – namely, that to non-Scottish Britons he is "Scottish when he loses and British when he wins"."
The way I would put it is that a determined - verging on embarrassing - effort by the establishment to gently extinguish Murray's Scottish identity in the public consciousness (most disgracefully by conflating his supposed 'maturing' process with a movement towards Britishness) has failed. It obviously deserved to fail, but it's still slightly surprising that it has. Probably the reason is that the hate campaign against Murray from a few years ago has come back to haunt the London media - it's a bit difficult to paint Murray as an anti-English brat and then embrace him as a True Brit icon, even with a cobbled-together 'maturing' narrative to explain away the dramatic transformation.
"Interestingly, though more people from England and Wales think of Murray as British now than in 2011, the proportion of Scots who think of Murray as Scottish has declined from 85% in 2011 to just 70% today."
That sentence doesn't make any sense. Do YouGov really believe that the other 30% of Scots don't think of Murray as Scottish? In a forced-choice question, you go with your perception of Murray's primary identity, but I'm sure virtually everyone would regard Murray as both Scottish and British, for the simple reason that he is. That will remain the case if Murray becomes a registered Scottish player post-independence. As I've pointed out many times, the word 'Britain' is not synonymous with 'whatever political state London happens to be capital city of at any given moment'.
Thinking about Andy Murray, do you think of him as a Scottish sportsman or British sportsman?
Scottish 53%
British 35%
Those are fairly astounding figures a year on from the "Oh my God, he's touching OUR flag! Oh my God, he's singing OUR anthem!" moment at the Olympics. I'm not entirely sure about YouGov's spin, though -
"the polling appears to mostly contradict what many have claimed about British attitudes towards the tennis star – namely, that to non-Scottish Britons he is "Scottish when he loses and British when he wins"."
The way I would put it is that a determined - verging on embarrassing - effort by the establishment to gently extinguish Murray's Scottish identity in the public consciousness (most disgracefully by conflating his supposed 'maturing' process with a movement towards Britishness) has failed. It obviously deserved to fail, but it's still slightly surprising that it has. Probably the reason is that the hate campaign against Murray from a few years ago has come back to haunt the London media - it's a bit difficult to paint Murray as an anti-English brat and then embrace him as a True Brit icon, even with a cobbled-together 'maturing' narrative to explain away the dramatic transformation.
"Interestingly, though more people from England and Wales think of Murray as British now than in 2011, the proportion of Scots who think of Murray as Scottish has declined from 85% in 2011 to just 70% today."
That sentence doesn't make any sense. Do YouGov really believe that the other 30% of Scots don't think of Murray as Scottish? In a forced-choice question, you go with your perception of Murray's primary identity, but I'm sure virtually everyone would regard Murray as both Scottish and British, for the simple reason that he is. That will remain the case if Murray becomes a registered Scottish player post-independence. As I've pointed out many times, the word 'Britain' is not synonymous with 'whatever political state London happens to be capital city of at any given moment'.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Political Betting's Smithson embarks on another "I will not be defied!!!!" rant and then bans me yet again
Apologies for anyone getting bored by this, but as you know I made a promise to the PB moderation team that if they continued to muck me about I would simply repost the exchanges here. Regrettably, that's now become necessary for a third time -
Mick Pork : Sadly as everyone on PB knows by now one persons mischief and jolly japes is another persons smears and tension filled trolling. Or something. ;)
I trust Malcolm did not storm off in the huff vowing never to return?
There's been a bit too much of that of late from some of our right wing friends sadly. :)
Alan Brooke : ah yes Tories like Old Nat, Stuart Dickson, JJPG2 famously huffed and vowed never to return. Good to see them still posting.
Mick Pork : OldNat left of his own accord without making a complete t*at of himself like some I could mention and the site is poorer without him. You might want to rethink the definition of leaving willingly for Stuart Dickson. Don't know if you're telling the truth about JJPG2, sorry. Before my time.
Me : "You might want to rethink the definition of leaving willingly for Stuart Dickson."
Exactly. He was banned for the heinous crime of using the words "pure comedy gold".
Mike Smithson : You know the rules. If you want to continue posting here you do not discuss moderation
You break this time and time again and I am getting sick of it.
If you have issues contact me directly.
Me : Mike, you know my position. It has not changed and it will not change. I will not be bullied. Sorry.
Mike Smithson : When you come onto my site you accept the house rules.
If you don't want to then you must accept the consequences.
Me : "When you come onto my site you accept the house rules."
I'm afraid I don't, Mike. As I've made abundantly clear, I'm prepared to follow sensible rules like not posting about matters that could get you into legal difficulty. I've always attempted to follow those rulings to the letter. But I'm not going to even attempt to follow daft rules, and I've made that abundantly clear to you again, and again, and again.
"If you don't want to then you must accept the consequences."
Nope. If you ban me or delete my posts for no good reason, that is a decision you've made, not me. That is your responsibility, and something that you have to justify (if you can). It's not something that I "must accept", and I have no intention of doing so.
* * *
I was of course then banned yet again, and unlike last time (only a few days ago) my photo has now disappeared and been replaced by a "banned" image. That might indicate this is intended as an indefinite ban.
For the uninitiated, Stuart Dickson was for many years PB's leading SNP poster (and indeed one of its leading posters, full stop). He was originally subject to an indefinite ban for - get this - posting the results of Scottish subsamples from UK-wide opinion polls, and calculating the percentage changes in each party's support from the previous general election, which is a format that Smithson disapproves of (as it happens I also disapprove of it, but I don't exactly regard it as a hanging offence). That ludicrous ban was eventually lifted after TWO YEARS, a development that unsurprisingly Stuart was oblivious to until I alerted him to it. Having got back on, he was indeed banned again just days later simply for using the words "pure comedy gold".
It's not hugely surprising that Smithson subsequently introduced the Kafkaesque "the first rule of moderation is that you don't talk about moderation", because it's the only hope he has of covering up his past antics (and perhaps more to the point the ongoing antics of his 'noble volunteer' Tory moderation team), which he simply can't even begin to justify. So I've been banned for breaking that rule, while Tory posters continue with their free licence to be abusive, and in many cases frankly racist.
That's the profoundly ugly state of the site that Mike has moulded through his own free choices, and if he thinks that's a site that he can be proud of, and one on which he's happy to build his career as a media pundit, then I think that's rather sad.
Mick Pork : Sadly as everyone on PB knows by now one persons mischief and jolly japes is another persons smears and tension filled trolling. Or something. ;)
I trust Malcolm did not storm off in the huff vowing never to return?
There's been a bit too much of that of late from some of our right wing friends sadly. :)
Alan Brooke : ah yes Tories like Old Nat, Stuart Dickson, JJPG2 famously huffed and vowed never to return. Good to see them still posting.
Mick Pork : OldNat left of his own accord without making a complete t*at of himself like some I could mention and the site is poorer without him. You might want to rethink the definition of leaving willingly for Stuart Dickson. Don't know if you're telling the truth about JJPG2, sorry. Before my time.
Me : "You might want to rethink the definition of leaving willingly for Stuart Dickson."
Exactly. He was banned for the heinous crime of using the words "pure comedy gold".
Mike Smithson : You know the rules. If you want to continue posting here you do not discuss moderation
You break this time and time again and I am getting sick of it.
If you have issues contact me directly.
Me : Mike, you know my position. It has not changed and it will not change. I will not be bullied. Sorry.
Mike Smithson : When you come onto my site you accept the house rules.
If you don't want to then you must accept the consequences.
Me : "When you come onto my site you accept the house rules."
I'm afraid I don't, Mike. As I've made abundantly clear, I'm prepared to follow sensible rules like not posting about matters that could get you into legal difficulty. I've always attempted to follow those rulings to the letter. But I'm not going to even attempt to follow daft rules, and I've made that abundantly clear to you again, and again, and again.
"If you don't want to then you must accept the consequences."
Nope. If you ban me or delete my posts for no good reason, that is a decision you've made, not me. That is your responsibility, and something that you have to justify (if you can). It's not something that I "must accept", and I have no intention of doing so.
* * *
I was of course then banned yet again, and unlike last time (only a few days ago) my photo has now disappeared and been replaced by a "banned" image. That might indicate this is intended as an indefinite ban.
For the uninitiated, Stuart Dickson was for many years PB's leading SNP poster (and indeed one of its leading posters, full stop). He was originally subject to an indefinite ban for - get this - posting the results of Scottish subsamples from UK-wide opinion polls, and calculating the percentage changes in each party's support from the previous general election, which is a format that Smithson disapproves of (as it happens I also disapprove of it, but I don't exactly regard it as a hanging offence). That ludicrous ban was eventually lifted after TWO YEARS, a development that unsurprisingly Stuart was oblivious to until I alerted him to it. Having got back on, he was indeed banned again just days later simply for using the words "pure comedy gold".
It's not hugely surprising that Smithson subsequently introduced the Kafkaesque "the first rule of moderation is that you don't talk about moderation", because it's the only hope he has of covering up his past antics (and perhaps more to the point the ongoing antics of his 'noble volunteer' Tory moderation team), which he simply can't even begin to justify. So I've been banned for breaking that rule, while Tory posters continue with their free licence to be abusive, and in many cases frankly racist.
That's the profoundly ugly state of the site that Mike has moulded through his own free choices, and if he thinks that's a site that he can be proud of, and one on which he's happy to build his career as a media pundit, then I think that's rather sad.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Yet another problem that London rule "isn't to blame for"
Well, I've had another highly instructive day. As you probably know, life expectancy in Scotland is considerably lower than in the rest of the UK, and there are pockets of Glasgow where it is lower than even the Gaza Strip. As this situation has arisen entirely on London's watch, you'd think it would be an open and shut case that the UK government must take at least a modicum of responsibility for it. But no - my CyberTory friends advise me that such an idea is ludicrous. Here is their list of excuses -
But...but...health is devolved! (Yes, but it's only been devolved since 1999, and the life expectancy differential has been in evidence since the 1950s. Fourteen years is scarcely enough time to turn around decades of damage caused by London misrule - and arguably it's six years rather than fourteen, because when Labour were in power at both Holyrood and Westminster the Scottish Government functioned more like the Downing Street-controlled Scottish Office of old. In any case, health policy is far from being the only determinant of life expectancy that is controlled by government, and many of the others such as welfare are still the sole preserve of Westminster.)
But...but...it's preposterous to suggest that Westminster is to blame when everyone knows this is all down to the Jocks' bad diet and lack of exercise! (So no-one has ever resorted to comfort eating or alcohol abuse after becoming unemployed, or being bullied by Atos? Can you truly see no connection to Westminster policy there?)
But...but...that's only Westminster POLICY you're talking about. It's absurd to blame the policies of individual governments on constitutional structures! (So how exactly do you think we ended up with all those government policies we didn't vote for, if not as a direct result of constitutional structures? Scotland didn't exactly win the Thatcher government in a game of cards, you know.)
But...but...pointing out that Westminster is to blame for the poor life expectancy of Scots is NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING! (Has anyone seen my irony-ometer lying around somewhere? I seem to have mislaid it.)
But...but...nobody knows what causes the poor life expectancy of Scots. It's a total mystery! (My personal favourite. Anything good that happens in Scotland = conclusive proof that we are 'better together' in this, the most glorious political union that our planet has ever been blessed enough to witness. Anything bad that happens in Scotland = BAFFLING.)
Well, I'm convinced. In future, I'll try not to be so impertinent as to expect the No campaign to actually defend the track record of the union. Let's not over-think things too much, as we join with Blair McDougall, Alistair Darling and the rest of the Scottish Labour family in saying "Play it again, Dave"...
But...but...health is devolved! (Yes, but it's only been devolved since 1999, and the life expectancy differential has been in evidence since the 1950s. Fourteen years is scarcely enough time to turn around decades of damage caused by London misrule - and arguably it's six years rather than fourteen, because when Labour were in power at both Holyrood and Westminster the Scottish Government functioned more like the Downing Street-controlled Scottish Office of old. In any case, health policy is far from being the only determinant of life expectancy that is controlled by government, and many of the others such as welfare are still the sole preserve of Westminster.)
But...but...it's preposterous to suggest that Westminster is to blame when everyone knows this is all down to the Jocks' bad diet and lack of exercise! (So no-one has ever resorted to comfort eating or alcohol abuse after becoming unemployed, or being bullied by Atos? Can you truly see no connection to Westminster policy there?)
But...but...that's only Westminster POLICY you're talking about. It's absurd to blame the policies of individual governments on constitutional structures! (So how exactly do you think we ended up with all those government policies we didn't vote for, if not as a direct result of constitutional structures? Scotland didn't exactly win the Thatcher government in a game of cards, you know.)
But...but...pointing out that Westminster is to blame for the poor life expectancy of Scots is NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING! (Has anyone seen my irony-ometer lying around somewhere? I seem to have mislaid it.)
But...but...nobody knows what causes the poor life expectancy of Scots. It's a total mystery! (My personal favourite. Anything good that happens in Scotland = conclusive proof that we are 'better together' in this, the most glorious political union that our planet has ever been blessed enough to witness. Anything bad that happens in Scotland = BAFFLING.)
Well, I'm convinced. In future, I'll try not to be so impertinent as to expect the No campaign to actually defend the track record of the union. Let's not over-think things too much, as we join with Blair McDougall, Alistair Darling and the rest of the Scottish Labour family in saying "Play it again, Dave"...
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Rhoda Grant and 'entitlement'
I've just spotted an article in the Edinburgh Evening News from just over a week ago, about the owner of an escort agency who is facing a potential jail term, but who vehemently denies that his business has anything to do with prostitution. It has the rare distinction of including a quote from Labour MSP Rhoda Grant on the sex industry that I actually agree with -
"Escort agencies call themselves something different but it is well understood what people are really buying. No one pays that amount of money for companionship."
I think that's probably right. I know of no credible evidence that any escort agency truly makes money on the basis of non-sexual companionship. Escorts are certainly able to refuse to have sex with any potential client they don't want to have sex with, but the flipside of that decision is that no payment will occur, because everyone knows the payment is either wholly or predominantly in exchange for sex. The idea that clients are only buying companionship is largely a fiction designed for PR purposes and legal cover.
So 1-0 to Rhoda. Unfortunately she then throws it all away with this piece of mind-bending gibberish -
"What he’s basically saying is these people [disabled and vulnerable men] are lesser human beings and not entitled to or able to find a real relationship. I know plenty of disabled people in loving relationships. To say to certain categories of people that they have to pay for sex or company is discrimination at its very worst."
Dear God. Who exactly is forcing anyone to pay for sex, or denying them the ability to have a sexual relationship by any other means? If there was a law to that effect, and Rhoda was spearheading the fight to repeal that law, I'd be right there in her corner. Unfortunately she's not doing that. The legislation that she's proposing will have absolutely no effect on the ability or otherwise of disabled and vulnerable men to successfully form 'real' relationships. But for those disabled and vulnerable men who fail to form such relationships and then seek consensual paid sex as an alternative, Rhoda's plan is to throw them into jail, and treat sex workers who pocket a considerable amount of cash as 'victims' of disabled and vulnerable men. She regards this, astonishingly, as an 'anti-discrimination' measure.
The other word that leaps out at me is 'entitled'. It's very hard to escape the conclusion that Rhoda is implying that disabled men are literally entitled to a 'real relationship' - which presumably suggests a relationship that is sexual, even if it has many other facets as well. If so, that's extraordinary. After all, the basic premise of those like Rhoda who want to criminalise the purchase of sex is that no-one has an entitlement to sex. That doesn't just refer to the blindingly obvious point that an individual does not have an entitlement to sex if no-one consents to have sex with them - it also means they do not have an entitlement to sex even if someone does consent, but does so in 'the wrong way', ie. in exchange for payment. And yet Rhoda suddenly seems to be going to completely the other extreme and declaring that not only does everyone have a right to sex, but also to a fully-fledged relationship to go along with it. How exactly does she propose to enforce that 'entitlement'?
OK, she doesn't. It's waffle.
A useful analogy is the medical supply of blood. A person might need/want a blood donation, but that does not mean they have any right to demand that others donate blood. If no blood is made available, there is no right to the blood of others, and everyone accepts that. By the same token, disabled or vulnerable people have absolutely no right to sex if others are unwilling to consent to it. But if people are willing to donate blood for whatever reason, would it still be justifiable for the state to ban the process on the grounds that "nobody has the right to others' blood"?
Of course it wouldn't. So why does Rhoda think it's any of of her business to prevent women having consensual sex with disabled men, just because she personally finds their reasons for doing so distasteful? We already know what her response would be - it's that women only need the money because of poverty. So yes, rather than criminalising vulnerable people, let's end poverty. That would mean the number of people prepared to have sex in exchange for money would decrease dramatically, and that would be a good thing. It would constitute an enhancement of freedom, because people would at last be freely choosing their ideal way of life, rather than freely choosing the 'least worst option' available. But it would also mean that the number of people willing to work as cleaners or shelf-stackers would decrease dramatically, for exactly the same reason. Would Rhoda and the Labour party (so wedded to the Blunkett doctrine that even the most menial and unpleasant work is good for the human spirit and somehow "heals the sick") join me in celebrating that enhancement of freedom? I somehow doubt it.
We've arrived at the curious position where Labour still believe in socialism, but only when they talk about sex work.
"Escort agencies call themselves something different but it is well understood what people are really buying. No one pays that amount of money for companionship."
I think that's probably right. I know of no credible evidence that any escort agency truly makes money on the basis of non-sexual companionship. Escorts are certainly able to refuse to have sex with any potential client they don't want to have sex with, but the flipside of that decision is that no payment will occur, because everyone knows the payment is either wholly or predominantly in exchange for sex. The idea that clients are only buying companionship is largely a fiction designed for PR purposes and legal cover.
So 1-0 to Rhoda. Unfortunately she then throws it all away with this piece of mind-bending gibberish -
"What he’s basically saying is these people [disabled and vulnerable men] are lesser human beings and not entitled to or able to find a real relationship. I know plenty of disabled people in loving relationships. To say to certain categories of people that they have to pay for sex or company is discrimination at its very worst."
Dear God. Who exactly is forcing anyone to pay for sex, or denying them the ability to have a sexual relationship by any other means? If there was a law to that effect, and Rhoda was spearheading the fight to repeal that law, I'd be right there in her corner. Unfortunately she's not doing that. The legislation that she's proposing will have absolutely no effect on the ability or otherwise of disabled and vulnerable men to successfully form 'real' relationships. But for those disabled and vulnerable men who fail to form such relationships and then seek consensual paid sex as an alternative, Rhoda's plan is to throw them into jail, and treat sex workers who pocket a considerable amount of cash as 'victims' of disabled and vulnerable men. She regards this, astonishingly, as an 'anti-discrimination' measure.
The other word that leaps out at me is 'entitled'. It's very hard to escape the conclusion that Rhoda is implying that disabled men are literally entitled to a 'real relationship' - which presumably suggests a relationship that is sexual, even if it has many other facets as well. If so, that's extraordinary. After all, the basic premise of those like Rhoda who want to criminalise the purchase of sex is that no-one has an entitlement to sex. That doesn't just refer to the blindingly obvious point that an individual does not have an entitlement to sex if no-one consents to have sex with them - it also means they do not have an entitlement to sex even if someone does consent, but does so in 'the wrong way', ie. in exchange for payment. And yet Rhoda suddenly seems to be going to completely the other extreme and declaring that not only does everyone have a right to sex, but also to a fully-fledged relationship to go along with it. How exactly does she propose to enforce that 'entitlement'?
OK, she doesn't. It's waffle.
A useful analogy is the medical supply of blood. A person might need/want a blood donation, but that does not mean they have any right to demand that others donate blood. If no blood is made available, there is no right to the blood of others, and everyone accepts that. By the same token, disabled or vulnerable people have absolutely no right to sex if others are unwilling to consent to it. But if people are willing to donate blood for whatever reason, would it still be justifiable for the state to ban the process on the grounds that "nobody has the right to others' blood"?
Of course it wouldn't. So why does Rhoda think it's any of of her business to prevent women having consensual sex with disabled men, just because she personally finds their reasons for doing so distasteful? We already know what her response would be - it's that women only need the money because of poverty. So yes, rather than criminalising vulnerable people, let's end poverty. That would mean the number of people prepared to have sex in exchange for money would decrease dramatically, and that would be a good thing. It would constitute an enhancement of freedom, because people would at last be freely choosing their ideal way of life, rather than freely choosing the 'least worst option' available. But it would also mean that the number of people willing to work as cleaners or shelf-stackers would decrease dramatically, for exactly the same reason. Would Rhoda and the Labour party (so wedded to the Blunkett doctrine that even the most menial and unpleasant work is good for the human spirit and somehow "heals the sick") join me in celebrating that enhancement of freedom? I somehow doubt it.
We've arrived at the curious position where Labour still believe in socialism, but only when they talk about sex work.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Shock as Britain's leading cat forum bans badgers
As you might remember, I recently made a solemn promise to the moderators of a certain Tory-dominated "non-aligned" political website that if they continued deleting posts of mine for no good reason, I would simply repost them here. Regrettably, it's become necessary to make good on that promise for a second time -
Plato : I don't for a second believe in psychics, but having seen Derren Brown in action - I can fully understand why anyone who wasn't certain it was cobblers would be convinced. He's a master of the art of mentalism and if he chose to be a charlatan would no doubt have made an enormous fortune.
That he's also a very accomplished magician and artist just shows what creativity and a top drawer IQ can accomplish - he's a rare beast.
His stage shows are incredible. This is rather fun taster.
Me : "I don't for a second believe in psychics"
Phew. For a moment there I thought you said you don't believe in physics.
Plato : @PB Moderator
Can you confirm if I and another PBer aren't to discuss each others posts?
You said we weren't to do so several days ago, but I seem to be the only one complying with your request.
I'd appreciate a response as either someone is taking the p*** out of the site's rules or I'm getting rocks thrown at me when under the impression that I can't throw them back.
I have no interest in doing so as its very boring for everyone else - but if I choose to do so, I'd like to do it knowing I won't be banned.
Me : "You said we weren't to do so several days ago, but I seem to be the only one complying with your request."
I take it you are aware that the post you have just written (along with umpteen other near-identical ones) means that you are not in fact complying with that request? Perhaps you weren't. You are now.
* * *
After that exchange was deleted, I decided to give the moderation team an opportunity to demonstrate their even-handedness once more, by allowing me to post a badger video in response to Plato's Derren Brown videos. Alas, my seven or so attempts to get the badger video up were met with instant deletion, and I have now been banned from the site. So these are the current PB rules as far as I can discern them -
1) A Tory poster calling an SNP poster a Nazi, a w**ker, a t*at or a member of the Ku Klux Klan = excellent, highly encouraged.
2) An SNP poster using the words "pure comedy gold" = instant lifetime banning.
3) Derren Brown videos/cat videos/reviews of chick flicks = highly relevant to a political betting forum, enriching of discussion.
4) Badger videos = sling your hook, you Jock scum.
Plato : I don't for a second believe in psychics, but having seen Derren Brown in action - I can fully understand why anyone who wasn't certain it was cobblers would be convinced. He's a master of the art of mentalism and if he chose to be a charlatan would no doubt have made an enormous fortune.
That he's also a very accomplished magician and artist just shows what creativity and a top drawer IQ can accomplish - he's a rare beast.
His stage shows are incredible. This is rather fun taster.
Me : "I don't for a second believe in psychics"
Phew. For a moment there I thought you said you don't believe in physics.
Plato : @PB Moderator
Can you confirm if I and another PBer aren't to discuss each others posts?
You said we weren't to do so several days ago, but I seem to be the only one complying with your request.
I'd appreciate a response as either someone is taking the p*** out of the site's rules or I'm getting rocks thrown at me when under the impression that I can't throw them back.
I have no interest in doing so as its very boring for everyone else - but if I choose to do so, I'd like to do it knowing I won't be banned.
Me : "You said we weren't to do so several days ago, but I seem to be the only one complying with your request."
I take it you are aware that the post you have just written (along with umpteen other near-identical ones) means that you are not in fact complying with that request? Perhaps you weren't. You are now.
* * *
After that exchange was deleted, I decided to give the moderation team an opportunity to demonstrate their even-handedness once more, by allowing me to post a badger video in response to Plato's Derren Brown videos. Alas, my seven or so attempts to get the badger video up were met with instant deletion, and I have now been banned from the site. So these are the current PB rules as far as I can discern them -
1) A Tory poster calling an SNP poster a Nazi, a w**ker, a t*at or a member of the Ku Klux Klan = excellent, highly encouraged.
2) An SNP poster using the words "pure comedy gold" = instant lifetime banning.
3) Derren Brown videos/cat videos/reviews of chick flicks = highly relevant to a political betting forum, enriching of discussion.
4) Badger videos = sling your hook, you Jock scum.
Donside stays onside with the SNP
So as it turned out, Duncan Hothersall's profound sense of gloom about Labour's prospects of winning a by-election in a traditional area of strength was fully justified -
SNP 42.0%
Labour 33.3%
Liberal Democrats 8.3%
Conservatives 7.7%
UKIP 4.8%
Greens 1.7%
National Front 1.0%
Scottish Christian Party 0.9%
SDA 0.1%
I'm old enough (and in fact anyone over the age of about four is old enough) to know that by-elections that are supposed to be routine can easily produce a jaw-dropping "where did that come from?" result on the night. The examples in recent years alone are plentiful - Glasgow East, Dunfermline and West Fife, Glenrothes, Bradford West. So in spite of the bookies' odds, I sat down to watch the result tonight with a certain amount of trepidation. I needn't have worried, though. The idea that this was some kind of moral victory for Labour is laughable. It's almost an iron law in politics - governments shed votes in by-elections, oppositions gain them. Labour in this instance even had the advantage of being a 'double opposition' - they are in opposition both at Westminster and in Holyrood. They were also fighting in territory that they comfortably held at the 2010 UK general election. In a nutshell, this is a by-election they should have been expecting to win with a bit to spare, not aiming to "get the SNP below 50%", as the sainted Ms Dugdale absurdly claimed at the start of proceedings tonight.
The SNP deserve huge credit for avoiding the mistake that Labour themselves have made on so many occasions in defending 'safe seats', by treating the by-election and the constituency with the full respect they deserved. A party that doesn't act like it 'owns' certain votes or is 'entitled' to them is a much more attractive proposition. This is a win that was hard-earned, and all the sweeter for it.
There was also a very interesting tidbit from Stewart Maxwell at the end of the night - apparently the full results of the SNP's canvassing of referendum voting intentions in Donside show Yes on 34% and No on 29%. On the face of it, that flatly contradicts Mark McDonald's supposed "bombshell admission" that most people in the constituency would vote No if the referendum was held now, but perhaps there was a follow-up question to undecided voters asking how they were leaning at present.
Now then. What you're about to read is something that UKIP's "Scottish leader" Lord Monckton actually said tonight on the BBC results programme. This is not a typo.
"UKIP are the most pro-European of all the Scottish parties."
As naturalistic sentences in the English language go, that's right up there with "Hitler was the most pro-Jewish of all the French dictators". Apparently, though, Monckton's appearance on the BBC was a model of sanity and factual accuracy compared to his contribution to the STV coverage just a few minutes earlier, which I sadly missed. Andrea Parma told me that Monckton had followed in Nigel Farage's admirable footsteps by making reference to an epochal "Stirling by-election", which most of us are mysteriously unable to recall. Is this the UKIP equivalent of holocaust denial - "the media are lying to you, resist the drugs, there WAS a Stirling by-election"?
I checked Twitter to see if I could find out what Monckton had actually said about "that night in Stirling", but alas, I couldn't spot any direct reference. What I did find, however, more than made up for it. I'm still struggling to regain my composure.
Kieran Andrews : #scotnight has the beginnings of the Ukip Scottish empire. Lord Monckton interview is extraordinary.
Kirsty Boyle : This dude Monckton is a Barry Humphries character isn't he?
Doug Daniel : Lord Monckton just claimed Alex Salmond was thrown out of the Labour party for being too left wing. Funniest thing ever?
Andy Neil : The interviewer on #scotnight trying to stifle laughter as Lord Monckton makes things up.
Christina McKelvie : Monckton!!! OMG!!!
Magnus Jamieson : Bahahahaha, hilarious from Monckton! Legitimately hilarious! @Radical_Indy "sent from SNP". Literally laughing out loud.
Jonathan Mackie : Hahahahah @stvclaire stunned into silence as Monckton claims Salmond was chucked out of Labour party.
Lallands Peat Worrier : Alex Salmond was thrown out of the Labour party for being too left wing, suggests Monckton. #counterfactualhistory
Andrew Drynan : Is Monckton even on this planet ???
Fraser / Friseal : Bernard Ponsonby’s raised eyebrows said it all about Lord Monckton there.
Sophia Pangloss : *actual fell aff ma settee there...*
Anne Don : Monckton states nationalists are racist, but he is "more Scottish than most Scots".
Rattlecans : They've actually let that Monckton dude on the telly! Whit?
Alasdair Stephen : Lord Monckton just revealed that Alex Salmond was expelled from Labour Party for being too left wing!
Norman McQuade : Can any political anoraks remember if Monckton is firstly earth born and secondly gave the Scotland on Sunday a piece yonks ago?
David Clegg : Did that Lord Monckton interview really happen?!!!!
Cath Ferguson : Yes. Lord Viscount Monckton whatever is apparently "more Scots" than the average Scot. Whatever that's supposed to mean.
Kirsty Boyle : Alex Salmond gave birth to an alien baby before leading the Tories #monckton #UKIPversionoffacts
Joseph MacFarlane : No justice if that Monckton interview doesn't go viral.
Gavin Newlands : Anybody think that Monckton has been on a tour of distilleries on polling day? #heishallucinating
Alan Mackie : After hearing Monckton on #scotnight - have changed my mind. UKIP should be welcomed if only for the entertainment of their comedy madness.
Magnus Jamieson : You cannot make up characters like Monckton. You just cannot. The Universe gifts them to us once a blue moon to reaffirm our humanity.
Jason Rose : Ah, Monckton. Many years ago I interviewed him from his hospital bed about a jigsaw he invented. Mad as a bag of spiders.
Jonny McFarlane : @stvclaire momentarily stunned by total recall special effect claiming Salmond was booted out of #labour for being a socialist!
SNP 42.0%
Labour 33.3%
Liberal Democrats 8.3%
Conservatives 7.7%
UKIP 4.8%
Greens 1.7%
National Front 1.0%
Scottish Christian Party 0.9%
SDA 0.1%
I'm old enough (and in fact anyone over the age of about four is old enough) to know that by-elections that are supposed to be routine can easily produce a jaw-dropping "where did that come from?" result on the night. The examples in recent years alone are plentiful - Glasgow East, Dunfermline and West Fife, Glenrothes, Bradford West. So in spite of the bookies' odds, I sat down to watch the result tonight with a certain amount of trepidation. I needn't have worried, though. The idea that this was some kind of moral victory for Labour is laughable. It's almost an iron law in politics - governments shed votes in by-elections, oppositions gain them. Labour in this instance even had the advantage of being a 'double opposition' - they are in opposition both at Westminster and in Holyrood. They were also fighting in territory that they comfortably held at the 2010 UK general election. In a nutshell, this is a by-election they should have been expecting to win with a bit to spare, not aiming to "get the SNP below 50%", as the sainted Ms Dugdale absurdly claimed at the start of proceedings tonight.
The SNP deserve huge credit for avoiding the mistake that Labour themselves have made on so many occasions in defending 'safe seats', by treating the by-election and the constituency with the full respect they deserved. A party that doesn't act like it 'owns' certain votes or is 'entitled' to them is a much more attractive proposition. This is a win that was hard-earned, and all the sweeter for it.
There was also a very interesting tidbit from Stewart Maxwell at the end of the night - apparently the full results of the SNP's canvassing of referendum voting intentions in Donside show Yes on 34% and No on 29%. On the face of it, that flatly contradicts Mark McDonald's supposed "bombshell admission" that most people in the constituency would vote No if the referendum was held now, but perhaps there was a follow-up question to undecided voters asking how they were leaning at present.
Now then. What you're about to read is something that UKIP's "Scottish leader" Lord Monckton actually said tonight on the BBC results programme. This is not a typo.
"UKIP are the most pro-European of all the Scottish parties."
As naturalistic sentences in the English language go, that's right up there with "Hitler was the most pro-Jewish of all the French dictators". Apparently, though, Monckton's appearance on the BBC was a model of sanity and factual accuracy compared to his contribution to the STV coverage just a few minutes earlier, which I sadly missed. Andrea Parma told me that Monckton had followed in Nigel Farage's admirable footsteps by making reference to an epochal "Stirling by-election", which most of us are mysteriously unable to recall. Is this the UKIP equivalent of holocaust denial - "the media are lying to you, resist the drugs, there WAS a Stirling by-election"?
I checked Twitter to see if I could find out what Monckton had actually said about "that night in Stirling", but alas, I couldn't spot any direct reference. What I did find, however, more than made up for it. I'm still struggling to regain my composure.
Kieran Andrews : #scotnight has the beginnings of the Ukip Scottish empire. Lord Monckton interview is extraordinary.
Kirsty Boyle : This dude Monckton is a Barry Humphries character isn't he?
Doug Daniel : Lord Monckton just claimed Alex Salmond was thrown out of the Labour party for being too left wing. Funniest thing ever?
Andy Neil : The interviewer on #scotnight trying to stifle laughter as Lord Monckton makes things up.
Christina McKelvie : Monckton!!! OMG!!!
Magnus Jamieson : Bahahahaha, hilarious from Monckton! Legitimately hilarious! @Radical_Indy "sent from SNP". Literally laughing out loud.
Jonathan Mackie : Hahahahah @stvclaire stunned into silence as Monckton claims Salmond was chucked out of Labour party.
Lallands Peat Worrier : Alex Salmond was thrown out of the Labour party for being too left wing, suggests Monckton. #counterfactualhistory
Andrew Drynan : Is Monckton even on this planet ???
Fraser / Friseal : Bernard Ponsonby’s raised eyebrows said it all about Lord Monckton there.
Sophia Pangloss : *actual fell aff ma settee there...*
Anne Don : Monckton states nationalists are racist, but he is "more Scottish than most Scots".
Rattlecans : They've actually let that Monckton dude on the telly! Whit?
Alasdair Stephen : Lord Monckton just revealed that Alex Salmond was expelled from Labour Party for being too left wing!
Norman McQuade : Can any political anoraks remember if Monckton is firstly earth born and secondly gave the Scotland on Sunday a piece yonks ago?
David Clegg : Did that Lord Monckton interview really happen?!!!!
Cath Ferguson : Yes. Lord Viscount Monckton whatever is apparently "more Scots" than the average Scot. Whatever that's supposed to mean.
Kirsty Boyle : Alex Salmond gave birth to an alien baby before leading the Tories #monckton #UKIPversionoffacts
Joseph MacFarlane : No justice if that Monckton interview doesn't go viral.
Gavin Newlands : Anybody think that Monckton has been on a tour of distilleries on polling day? #heishallucinating
Alan Mackie : After hearing Monckton on #scotnight - have changed my mind. UKIP should be welcomed if only for the entertainment of their comedy madness.
Magnus Jamieson : You cannot make up characters like Monckton. You just cannot. The Universe gifts them to us once a blue moon to reaffirm our humanity.
Jason Rose : Ah, Monckton. Many years ago I interviewed him from his hospital bed about a jigsaw he invented. Mad as a bag of spiders.
Jonny McFarlane : @stvclaire momentarily stunned by total recall special effect claiming Salmond was booted out of #labour for being a socialist!
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Wipe away those tears, folks - but yes, this might just be the last ever edition of the Daily Duncan
One good thing I would have said about controversial Labour activist Duncan Hothersall until a few short hours ago was that he didn't seem to be one of those people (naming no names, but James Mackenzie) who huffily march off with their ball at the first sign of anyone daring to disagree with them. Even after a fair number of sharp exchanges, Duncan still followed me on Twitter, and I still followed him. Refreshingly mature, I might (almost) have said.
Alas, it turns out that even a man of Duncan's renowned tolerance and saintly political ecumenicism has his breaking-point. At the end of the following exchange, I noticed all of a sudden that not only was Duncan no longer following me, but I was no longer following him. As I hadn't unfollowed him, that could only mean one thing - he had gone the whole hog and blocked me altogether. Take a look for yourself and see if you can decide which particular example of my vile Cybernat hate-speech may have tipped the balance, and made such a drastic step unavoidable.
On the whole, I'm sure Duncan will have very few regrets about blocking someone with alternative political views who is uncivil enough to actually answer back now and again. The only minor downside I can see for him is that he might find me slightly less accommodating the next time he curtly demands that I spare his blushes by removing a comment from this blog.
For my own part, I dare say I'll come to terms with this blow eventually. Call me paranoid, though, but I can't help feeling that it significantly increases the risk of me being blackballed at my hard-earned #Twinner initiation ceremony next year. I'll just have to hope they show some mercy, and break the bad news before inviting me to press my tongue against the underside of the Sacred Gerbil.
* * *
The SNP : @markmcdsnp will stand up against Labour/Tory council plans to close Bramble Brae and Middleton Park schools.
The SNP : @markmcdsnp said: "There is no educational justification whatever for the council's closure plans."
The SNP : @markmcdsnp said: "An SNP win on Thursday is vital if these excellent schools are to be saved"
The SNP : @markmcdsnp: “The closure plans are wrong on educational grounds, and must be opposed for the sake of the children"
Duncan Hothersall : SNP incredibly jumpy on #Donside. What's going on? Pre-poll nerves or opinion poll worries?
Scottish Labour : The track record of @markmcdsnp - as an MSP, Mark voted to cut £2 million from Aberdeen College cutting thousands of student places.
Scottish Labour : The track record of @markmcdsnp - as an MSP, Mark voted against a solution to stop Bedroom Tax evictions across Scotland #donside
Duncan Hothersall : The other parties are relentlessly attacking the SNP, says the SNP, in between relentless attacks on the other parties. :-)
Me : Scottish Labour do look a bit jumpy, though, Duncan. Just judging by their tweets. Bad private polls?
Duncan Hothersall : SNP are defending a 7,000 majority. Not jumpy to attack that.
Me : But Labour hold the equivalent seat(s) at Westminster, don't they? Shouldn't they at least have a 50/50 chance?
Duncan Hothersall : Even for you that's pathetic.
Me : Explain?
Duncan Hothersall : Well, you habitually pick fights on basis of feeble arguments, but this one takes the biscuit. Any clearer?
Me : "Picking a fight"? Who is the aggression coming from in this exchange? Why is my argument "feeble"?
Duncan Hothersall : Off you trot.
Me : I'll take that as a "no, I can't explain why I don't expect Labour to win in area of traditional strength".
Duncan Hothersall : Other than pointing out a 7,000 majority for the SNP. Making this not an area of current Labour strength.
Me : "Current" excludes the 2010 general election, which elected the UK government that currently rules over us?
Duncan Hothersall : If this were a Westminster by-election that might make sense, but it isn't, so it doesn't. Enough daft laddie nonsense from you.
Me : So you agree that Donside is an area of current Labour strength in Westminster terms? Shouldn't they be doing better?
Duncan Hothersall : You do know this isn't a Westminster by-election, yes? People vote differently in different types of election, yes? Basic stuff.
Me : As far as I can see, voters barely make that distinction at all in by-elections. Why do you expect Labour to lose?
Duncan Hothersall : Evidence of that assertion?
Me : It's an observation. Glasgow East didn't feel much like a Westminster contest, but it was. Only difference is UK-wide coverage.
Duncan Hothersall : So you have no evidence. You think the electorate are too stupid to know what sort of representative they are choosing? I don't.
Me : You think people are stupid enough to believe a great many things, Duncan, so why start underestimating them now?
Duncan Hothersall : (no reply, blocked me)
Alas, it turns out that even a man of Duncan's renowned tolerance and saintly political ecumenicism has his breaking-point. At the end of the following exchange, I noticed all of a sudden that not only was Duncan no longer following me, but I was no longer following him. As I hadn't unfollowed him, that could only mean one thing - he had gone the whole hog and blocked me altogether. Take a look for yourself and see if you can decide which particular example of my vile Cybernat hate-speech may have tipped the balance, and made such a drastic step unavoidable.
On the whole, I'm sure Duncan will have very few regrets about blocking someone with alternative political views who is uncivil enough to actually answer back now and again. The only minor downside I can see for him is that he might find me slightly less accommodating the next time he curtly demands that I spare his blushes by removing a comment from this blog.
For my own part, I dare say I'll come to terms with this blow eventually. Call me paranoid, though, but I can't help feeling that it significantly increases the risk of me being blackballed at my hard-earned #Twinner initiation ceremony next year. I'll just have to hope they show some mercy, and break the bad news before inviting me to press my tongue against the underside of the Sacred Gerbil.
* * *
The SNP : @markmcdsnp will stand up against Labour/Tory council plans to close Bramble Brae and Middleton Park schools.
The SNP : @markmcdsnp said: "There is no educational justification whatever for the council's closure plans."
The SNP : @markmcdsnp said: "An SNP win on Thursday is vital if these excellent schools are to be saved"
The SNP : @markmcdsnp: “The closure plans are wrong on educational grounds, and must be opposed for the sake of the children"
Duncan Hothersall : SNP incredibly jumpy on #Donside. What's going on? Pre-poll nerves or opinion poll worries?
Scottish Labour : The track record of @markmcdsnp - as an MSP, Mark voted to cut £2 million from Aberdeen College cutting thousands of student places.
Scottish Labour : The track record of @markmcdsnp - as an MSP, Mark voted against a solution to stop Bedroom Tax evictions across Scotland #donside
Duncan Hothersall : The other parties are relentlessly attacking the SNP, says the SNP, in between relentless attacks on the other parties. :-)
Me : Scottish Labour do look a bit jumpy, though, Duncan. Just judging by their tweets. Bad private polls?
Duncan Hothersall : SNP are defending a 7,000 majority. Not jumpy to attack that.
Me : But Labour hold the equivalent seat(s) at Westminster, don't they? Shouldn't they at least have a 50/50 chance?
Duncan Hothersall : Even for you that's pathetic.
Me : Explain?
Duncan Hothersall : Well, you habitually pick fights on basis of feeble arguments, but this one takes the biscuit. Any clearer?
Me : "Picking a fight"? Who is the aggression coming from in this exchange? Why is my argument "feeble"?
Duncan Hothersall : Off you trot.
Me : I'll take that as a "no, I can't explain why I don't expect Labour to win in area of traditional strength".
Duncan Hothersall : Other than pointing out a 7,000 majority for the SNP. Making this not an area of current Labour strength.
Me : "Current" excludes the 2010 general election, which elected the UK government that currently rules over us?
Duncan Hothersall : If this were a Westminster by-election that might make sense, but it isn't, so it doesn't. Enough daft laddie nonsense from you.
Me : So you agree that Donside is an area of current Labour strength in Westminster terms? Shouldn't they be doing better?
Duncan Hothersall : You do know this isn't a Westminster by-election, yes? People vote differently in different types of election, yes? Basic stuff.
Me : As far as I can see, voters barely make that distinction at all in by-elections. Why do you expect Labour to lose?
Duncan Hothersall : Evidence of that assertion?
Me : It's an observation. Glasgow East didn't feel much like a Westminster contest, but it was. Only difference is UK-wide coverage.
Duncan Hothersall : So you have no evidence. You think the electorate are too stupid to know what sort of representative they are choosing? I don't.
Me : You think people are stupid enough to believe a great many things, Duncan, so why start underestimating them now?
Duncan Hothersall : (no reply, blocked me)
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Dubious legality and unpardonable folly
I agree with the general consensus that Road to Referendum has been an excellent series that has hopefully presaged the broadcast media upping their game in covering the referendum. However, there was a factual howler in the final episode last night that really troubled me. Iain Macwhirter's narration suggested that one reason the SNP had struggled in the 1999 Holyrood election was that Alex Salmond found himself completely out of step with public opinion over "the United Nations bombing of Serbia". In reality of course, not only was the bombing of Serbia categorically not a United Nations operation, it wasn't even authorised by the UN. That is precisely what Mr Salmond was getting at when he described the unilateral action by NATO as being of "dubious legality". There was never even the slightest chance of UN authorisation, because of the veto powers of both Russia and China on the Security Council.
Leaving aside the factual error, did Salmond's stance on Kosovo really cost the SNP the 1999 election? Hardly. In fact, it may even have gained them a few votes, because a substantial minority of the electorate were opposed to the war, and it's reasonable to suppose that those people may have been more passionate about the subject than the majority who were willing to give Blair and Clinton the benefit of the doubt. No, Macwhirter himself put his finger on the real explanation for the election result - there was sufficient goodwill at that time towards Donald Dewar and Tony Blair that it was Labour's election to lose. And they didn't do anything to lose it. If the SNP made any kind of tactical misstep, it was the Penny for Scotland campaign rather than anything to do with Kosovo.
* * *
You've got to hand it to the "UK" Independence Party - they really are a class act. Having launched their Aberdeen Donside by-election campaign in the entirely logical location of a pub 125 miles away in Edinburgh, they went on to send a letter to the deceased MSP they want to replace, requesting his vote. Now they've given us a potted history lesson on how the SNP ceased to be an "anti-English" party after winning a by-election in Stirling that never in fact took place, but which Nigel Farage is quite sure he once read about in a book.
In the highly unlikely event that UKIP do win tomorrow, presumably their chap will turn up at the Welsh Assembly and demand to be sworn in.
Leaving aside the factual error, did Salmond's stance on Kosovo really cost the SNP the 1999 election? Hardly. In fact, it may even have gained them a few votes, because a substantial minority of the electorate were opposed to the war, and it's reasonable to suppose that those people may have been more passionate about the subject than the majority who were willing to give Blair and Clinton the benefit of the doubt. No, Macwhirter himself put his finger on the real explanation for the election result - there was sufficient goodwill at that time towards Donald Dewar and Tony Blair that it was Labour's election to lose. And they didn't do anything to lose it. If the SNP made any kind of tactical misstep, it was the Penny for Scotland campaign rather than anything to do with Kosovo.
* * *
You've got to hand it to the "UK" Independence Party - they really are a class act. Having launched their Aberdeen Donside by-election campaign in the entirely logical location of a pub 125 miles away in Edinburgh, they went on to send a letter to the deceased MSP they want to replace, requesting his vote. Now they've given us a potted history lesson on how the SNP ceased to be an "anti-English" party after winning a by-election in Stirling that never in fact took place, but which Nigel Farage is quite sure he once read about in a book.
In the highly unlikely event that UKIP do win tomorrow, presumably their chap will turn up at the Welsh Assembly and demand to be sworn in.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
A value judgement
Kenny Farquharson on Twitter -
"What politicians like to describe as "Scottish values" are shared by tens of millions of English, Welsh and N Irish people."
So why do we keep voting overwhelmingly against the Tories, and ending up either with Tory governments elected by the rest of the UK, or with Labour governments that have had to tack so far to the right to appeal to Middle England that they are indistinguishable from Tory governments? Some people won't like to hear this, but if we measure values according to the governments and policies that people actually vote for, then "Scottish values" are probably shared more by the Nordic countries than they are by the south of England.
But I'll give you Wales, Kenny. Welsh and Scottish values are indeed very similar, as are the values held across large parts of northern England, and some pockets further south. But those areas just aren't strong enough in terms of population to swing the balance.
"What politicians like to describe as "Scottish values" are shared by tens of millions of English, Welsh and N Irish people."
So why do we keep voting overwhelmingly against the Tories, and ending up either with Tory governments elected by the rest of the UK, or with Labour governments that have had to tack so far to the right to appeal to Middle England that they are indistinguishable from Tory governments? Some people won't like to hear this, but if we measure values according to the governments and policies that people actually vote for, then "Scottish values" are probably shared more by the Nordic countries than they are by the south of England.
But I'll give you Wales, Kenny. Welsh and Scottish values are indeed very similar, as are the values held across large parts of northern England, and some pockets further south. But those areas just aren't strong enough in terms of population to swing the balance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)