Isn't it amazing the effect that lower expectations can have? Based on my poor opinion of many of the entries, I fully expected the Eurovision semi-finals to drag a little. But the first one absolutely flew by, and if anything I think I enjoyed it more than the semis last year. A number of the songs seemed better than I remembered, which is probably the effect of good staging - it's weird how that can trick the brain into honestly thinking that a song is significantly better than it would sound if you were blindfolded. The most dramatic example of that was the Ukraine "hamster wheel" effect. From previous listens I know full well that I don't rate that song as highly as some people do, and yet as an overall package I thought it was probably the best entry of the evening.
Ukraine now look much more plausible winners than Armenia. Nothing I saw led me to revise my observation from last night that Armenia's status as favourites was unwarranted, and sure enough I see that most bookies are now placing them slightly behind Sweden. But in all honesty Sweden didn't strike me as being a nailed-on winner either. This could be a much more open contest than we were led to expect. In some ways, the act that stood out the most was the Netherlands - it's probably too understated a song to win outright, but being both good and completely different from everyone else is like golddust, as last year's Dutch entry proved.
My prediction was almost right - I got nine out of the ten qualifiers correct, and I'm thrilled about the one I didn't expect, which was San Marino. It's bizarre that Valentina Monetta was regarded as a potential winner last year and failed to make it through to the final, but this year turned up with a much less promising song and qualified. Perhaps it was just that the live performance was more engaging this time.
On the other hand, I'm gutted for Estonia, Portugal and Albania. With the quality of Montenegro clearly shining through for the juries and televoters, I briefly harboured hopes that the same might prove to be the case for Portugal's equally 'ethnic' entry, but it wasn't to be. And I was really surprised when I checked my list of ten predicted qualifiers to see which one I'd got wrong, and discovered it was Estonia. I had them in the middle category of 'fairly likely' qualifiers, and based on the dramatic visual side of the performance I would have rated their chances even higher than that. So I don't understand it, but there's always one or two aspects of the result that don't make a lot of sense.
The one big disappointment about the show was the presenters - Danish television have taken a big step backwards after reasonably good choices of host from their Swedish and Azerbaijani predecessors. Recruiting the chap from Borgen initially seemed like an inspired choice based on his undoubted screen presence, but unfortunately someone seems to have hypnotised him and turned him into a gibbering idiot for Eurovision week. And he was the best of the three.
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Free Pork
Not an offer, alas, but a moral imperative. Long-term readers who recall the Kafkaesque nature of my own banning from Political Betting last year will probably not be surprised to learn that the Smithson regime has gone a step further, and is now seeking to moderate people for what they have allegedly said on other websites. It really is only a matter of time before the tiny remaining number of left-wing and/or pro-independence PB posters find themselves hauled before the OGH Committee on UnSmithsonian Activities (chair : Richard Dodd Esquire), and asked : "Are you now or have you ever been someone who makes insulting and inaccurate comments about Mike Smithson to your wife over the dinner table?"
Mind you, Smithson's cowardly Tory henchmen really ought to learn that "insulting" and "inaccurate" are not actually the same thing.
I'll largely let the following exchange from an earlier thread speak for itself, but just to set the scene, long-term pro-independence PB poster Mick Pork (who has been 'accidentally' banned by the moderators on literally dozens of previous occasions) found a few days ago that he was once again unable to post. He left a message on this blog asking fellow poster TheUnionDivvie to put in a word, which he did, and the highly plausible explanation came back that this was yet another technical fault, and that once an unblocking was "requested" the problem would be resolved within a few hours. On past form this wording was presumably chosen so that "PB Moderator", aka the serial fantasist, cheat and liar "The Screaming Eagles"/"TSE" could later pretend that no such request had ever been received.
Sure enough, several days later Mick was still unable to post, so TheUnionDivvie chased the matter up again. Apparently the situation had changed out of all recognition in the interim - the moderators had received disturbing reports that Mick may have made "insulting and inaccurate" comments about the saintly Mr Smithson somewhere else on the internet. This indeed would be a serious charge, because as every right-thinking person knows, the proprietor of Political Betting is beyond reasonable criticism (as curiously is Peter Kellner, even though Kellner amusingly banned Smithson from the YouGov panel for openly boasting he had lied in surveys to get more cash!).
So the moderators naturally took advantage of that astonishingly convenient 'accidental' banning of Mick, and simply left it in place as a punishment, pending further 'investigation'. (I cannot confirm the rumours that this will involve Mick's neighbours being waterboarded.) Well, how fortunate these moderators are - they don't even have to take positive action against the bastard SNP evildoers. All they have to do is just passively "delay the resolving of a technical fault". I don't know about you, but I can't see anything remotely fishy about that story.
By the way, when TheUnionDivvie first mentioned that Mick couldn't post, the hardcore anti-independence Tory troll "Carlotta Vance" was once again on hand to reinvent the story of my own banning, claiming that it only came about because I thought I was "bigger than Smithson's rules". Well, let's just remind ourselves of the priceless response that Smithson came out with when ex-MP Nick Palmer pointed out that nobody actually has a sodding clue what these supposed "rules" are -
"The basic rules Nick are not to do anything that could put the site in jeopardy - libel etc - and not to piss me off. The latter is quite hard to define."
* * *
Mick Pork : Sorry to bother Theuniondivvie again but if he has time could he please point out on that I am still being completely blocked from posting on PoliticalBetting. I would have asked him myself through PB long ago but completely blocked from posting means exactly that. The ability to use PB's messaging system has been blocked for me too. It won't work.
TheUnionDivvie : Hi Mick,
pm-ed the PB moderator with your situation this am, but no reply so far. I'll post here if I hear anything.
Tud
Mick Pork : Thanks TheUnionDivvie.
To be perfectly frank I'll be surprised if you do get a reply as the only reason Richard Tyndall was allowed to post again was because it was pointed out on the site repeatedly that he had been 'mysteriously' prevented from posting so the same will almost certainly apply for me.
We all know the Tory PB moderators are spineless cowards so if they can get away with banning those who disagree with them secretly and with nobody noticing then they will.
Mick Pork : Just saw your post on PB TheUnionDivvie. Thank you very much for making it and standing up for me on there mate. It takes a bit of guts considering how nasty the moderators can be.
One thing though, I can log in to Vanilla, I am just prevented from doing anything on PB while I am there which includes posting or messaging. A rather telling "YOU DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO DO THAT" comes up whenever I try to post anything which obviously points to it being the Moderators who have sneakily and cowardly changed my access parameters since self-evidently nobody else can do that on PB.
Mick Pork : Thanks again for having the guts to stick up for me TheUnionDivvie as I just saw your post as well as AlanBrooke making a complete t*at of himself trying to excuse the pathetic PB mods.
Apparently it's my computer's fault the mods and Smithson are so pointedly ignoring you and this is a "consistent" 'fault' despite it never happening before and me posting for months without any such trouble.
Bit much to expect any of the right-wing cowards on PB to care about posters being blocked for no reason and with nothing even close to a plausible excuse.
The herd also don't seem to have noticed that BobaFette is also strangely absent from posting of late as well as compouter. Though that might just be because PB is such a far-right zoo at the mo to be fair.
Can you imagine the volume of the shrieking if it was one of the PB Tories being prevented from posting on PB?
Exactly.
I also don't see the mockney sex tourist SeanT being prevented from posting despite his death threats on PB and posting of Tim's family's personal details, tellingly enough.
TheUnionDivvie : Mick, I finally got a response from the mods last night. Apparently some kind soul has been trawling the internet looking for comments from you re. PB & OGH, and has scampered back to PB to grass you up (I'm sure we could both make a list of likely candidates):
'We haven't fixed Mick's problem yet, it was brought to our attention Mick's been saying some inaccurate and insulting comments about Mike Smithson elsewhere.
So we're looking into that before we restore his posting privileges.'
Still, it indicates that the PB Tories are monitoring James's site on a regular basis, if there was any doubt!
Mick Pork : Sorry?? So the tory moderators on PB are now SERIOUSLY claiming that they are in charge of moderating OTHER internet sites to see if the comments there meet with their approval as well?? That's absolutely f***ing incredible!!
I notice this supposed mod didn't even have the balls to say what comments and on where lest they look even more ridiculous.
If I actually wanted to spread stuff about Smithson or the PB moderators elsewhere then I could do it on the biggest Scottish political sites like Newsnet or Wings but I could go wall to wall on the Telegraph, Mail and plenty of other media outlets. For that matter I could do it on ANY of those websites and change my name or go anonymously just as I could easily have gone anonymously on James' site.
The reason I didn't is not only that I couldn't care less about the fragile ego of PB's mods and I wouldn't waste my f***ing time, but that only a deranged power mad lunatic would think they can police the ENTIRE internet for comments from everyone as they moderate one particular site as this mod on PB jaw-droppingly thinks.
What's to stop someone posting under the name of anyone else on PB and using that as cover while they smear other posters elsewhere? Didn't that occur to the mod who you were talking to?
Are you certain it was a mod posting to you TheUnionDivvie? As what you've told us sounds about as reasonable and sane as SeanT posting on PB when he's pissed.
You've not only had it confirmed that you and the site were lied to with "the few hours to fix the problem" bulls**t but you've also had it confirmed that somebody posting to you as a moderator on PB now wants to police the entire internet just in case someone who posts on PB also posts something they don't like on any other site.
And they ACTUALLY GENUINELY want those who post on PB to know that is their new moderating stance and that mod told you that?? Whoever wrote that to you has flipped their lid TUD. It's the only possible explanation.
If they keep trying to ban me for no reason (because this new insanity isn't even f***ing CLOSE to being one) then by all means feel free to point that staggering fact out. Even the herd and the PB Tories would be hard pushed to justify that lunacy considering how many of them post elsewhere and with even less inhibition than they do on PB.
The fact is I was prevented from posting on PB long BEFORE this moderator started to desperately look for other (frankly crazy) reasons to justify it. You know it, I know it and he knows it.
Mick Pork - or is AlanBrooke or Carlotta in disguise? LOL : It gets even better!
So you DID point out that was the reason this supposed mod gave you and the PB Tories apparently couldn't care less that anything they say on another site can be taken down and used against them by this eccentric mod.
Even Shadsy joined in with the hilarity.
LOL
Do the mods even realise how utterly insane this new moderating policy makes them look??
You now have the PERFECT comeback to any PB Tory by simply asking if they have said anything more unpleasant on another site and whether that meets with PB's mods approval.
You can even turn up the laughter by positing if Carlotta (or anyone else) was posting as someone on Paul Staines (or any other) site and whether that meets with PoliticalBetting's new moderating rules.
Imagine the fun as everyone starts to look for aliases for everyone else on other sites and whether what is said elsewhere meets with this mods approval. Pure Comedy Gold.
It's not even as if this mod has left any wiggle room as he has told you I'm not allowed to post, not because not because of what *I* said, but because of what someone ELSE has told him I supposedly said on another site. Completely and utterly bonkers.
Thank god the mod didn't just allow me back on like he did with Richard Tyndall or PoliticalBetting and TSE could have ended up a complete laughing stock by now.
Hugh : Mick,
Interesting to read of your PB experiences. A similar thing happened to me.
I was banned without warning or explanation. Needless to say, attempts to find out what the heck happened have met with silence, so I remain genuinely mystified as to what exactly my "offence" was.
This happened during a period when TSE was "guest editing" in Mike Smithson's absence.
I know for a fact similar has happened to many other non-Rightwing posters. Bannings and moderation for minor breaches of the (increasingly bizarre) "Site rules". Or in my case no breach of any rule.
Meanwhile, Rightwing posters get away with serious and repeated breaches of those same rules. I have even seen clear libels go unmoderated and unpunished.
I don't know if Mike Smithson is aware of what some of his Moderators are up to. Or whether it's deliberate on the part of mods, or they're simply unable to put their political biases to one side.
Either way, it's clear that PB's Rightwing moderators are discouraging or (in my case) actively preventing left of centre / non-Tory posters.
As a result PB is now nothing more than a sterile Rightwing talking shop.
Mind you, Smithson's cowardly Tory henchmen really ought to learn that "insulting" and "inaccurate" are not actually the same thing.
I'll largely let the following exchange from an earlier thread speak for itself, but just to set the scene, long-term pro-independence PB poster Mick Pork (who has been 'accidentally' banned by the moderators on literally dozens of previous occasions) found a few days ago that he was once again unable to post. He left a message on this blog asking fellow poster TheUnionDivvie to put in a word, which he did, and the highly plausible explanation came back that this was yet another technical fault, and that once an unblocking was "requested" the problem would be resolved within a few hours. On past form this wording was presumably chosen so that "PB Moderator", aka the serial fantasist, cheat and liar "The Screaming Eagles"/"TSE" could later pretend that no such request had ever been received.
Sure enough, several days later Mick was still unable to post, so TheUnionDivvie chased the matter up again. Apparently the situation had changed out of all recognition in the interim - the moderators had received disturbing reports that Mick may have made "insulting and inaccurate" comments about the saintly Mr Smithson somewhere else on the internet. This indeed would be a serious charge, because as every right-thinking person knows, the proprietor of Political Betting is beyond reasonable criticism (as curiously is Peter Kellner, even though Kellner amusingly banned Smithson from the YouGov panel for openly boasting he had lied in surveys to get more cash!).
So the moderators naturally took advantage of that astonishingly convenient 'accidental' banning of Mick, and simply left it in place as a punishment, pending further 'investigation'. (I cannot confirm the rumours that this will involve Mick's neighbours being waterboarded.) Well, how fortunate these moderators are - they don't even have to take positive action against the bastard SNP evildoers. All they have to do is just passively "delay the resolving of a technical fault". I don't know about you, but I can't see anything remotely fishy about that story.
By the way, when TheUnionDivvie first mentioned that Mick couldn't post, the hardcore anti-independence Tory troll "Carlotta Vance" was once again on hand to reinvent the story of my own banning, claiming that it only came about because I thought I was "bigger than Smithson's rules". Well, let's just remind ourselves of the priceless response that Smithson came out with when ex-MP Nick Palmer pointed out that nobody actually has a sodding clue what these supposed "rules" are -
"The basic rules Nick are not to do anything that could put the site in jeopardy - libel etc - and not to piss me off. The latter is quite hard to define."
* * *
Mick Pork : Sorry to bother Theuniondivvie again but if he has time could he please point out on that I am still being completely blocked from posting on PoliticalBetting. I would have asked him myself through PB long ago but completely blocked from posting means exactly that. The ability to use PB's messaging system has been blocked for me too. It won't work.
TheUnionDivvie : Hi Mick,
pm-ed the PB moderator with your situation this am, but no reply so far. I'll post here if I hear anything.
Tud
Mick Pork : Thanks TheUnionDivvie.
To be perfectly frank I'll be surprised if you do get a reply as the only reason Richard Tyndall was allowed to post again was because it was pointed out on the site repeatedly that he had been 'mysteriously' prevented from posting so the same will almost certainly apply for me.
We all know the Tory PB moderators are spineless cowards so if they can get away with banning those who disagree with them secretly and with nobody noticing then they will.
Mick Pork : Just saw your post on PB TheUnionDivvie. Thank you very much for making it and standing up for me on there mate. It takes a bit of guts considering how nasty the moderators can be.
One thing though, I can log in to Vanilla, I am just prevented from doing anything on PB while I am there which includes posting or messaging. A rather telling "YOU DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO DO THAT" comes up whenever I try to post anything which obviously points to it being the Moderators who have sneakily and cowardly changed my access parameters since self-evidently nobody else can do that on PB.
Mick Pork : Thanks again for having the guts to stick up for me TheUnionDivvie as I just saw your post as well as AlanBrooke making a complete t*at of himself trying to excuse the pathetic PB mods.
Apparently it's my computer's fault the mods and Smithson are so pointedly ignoring you and this is a "consistent" 'fault' despite it never happening before and me posting for months without any such trouble.
Bit much to expect any of the right-wing cowards on PB to care about posters being blocked for no reason and with nothing even close to a plausible excuse.
The herd also don't seem to have noticed that BobaFette is also strangely absent from posting of late as well as compouter. Though that might just be because PB is such a far-right zoo at the mo to be fair.
Can you imagine the volume of the shrieking if it was one of the PB Tories being prevented from posting on PB?
Exactly.
I also don't see the mockney sex tourist SeanT being prevented from posting despite his death threats on PB and posting of Tim's family's personal details, tellingly enough.
TheUnionDivvie : Mick, I finally got a response from the mods last night. Apparently some kind soul has been trawling the internet looking for comments from you re. PB & OGH, and has scampered back to PB to grass you up (I'm sure we could both make a list of likely candidates):
'We haven't fixed Mick's problem yet, it was brought to our attention Mick's been saying some inaccurate and insulting comments about Mike Smithson elsewhere.
So we're looking into that before we restore his posting privileges.'
Still, it indicates that the PB Tories are monitoring James's site on a regular basis, if there was any doubt!
Mick Pork : Sorry?? So the tory moderators on PB are now SERIOUSLY claiming that they are in charge of moderating OTHER internet sites to see if the comments there meet with their approval as well?? That's absolutely f***ing incredible!!
I notice this supposed mod didn't even have the balls to say what comments and on where lest they look even more ridiculous.
If I actually wanted to spread stuff about Smithson or the PB moderators elsewhere then I could do it on the biggest Scottish political sites like Newsnet or Wings but I could go wall to wall on the Telegraph, Mail and plenty of other media outlets. For that matter I could do it on ANY of those websites and change my name or go anonymously just as I could easily have gone anonymously on James' site.
The reason I didn't is not only that I couldn't care less about the fragile ego of PB's mods and I wouldn't waste my f***ing time, but that only a deranged power mad lunatic would think they can police the ENTIRE internet for comments from everyone as they moderate one particular site as this mod on PB jaw-droppingly thinks.
What's to stop someone posting under the name of anyone else on PB and using that as cover while they smear other posters elsewhere? Didn't that occur to the mod who you were talking to?
Are you certain it was a mod posting to you TheUnionDivvie? As what you've told us sounds about as reasonable and sane as SeanT posting on PB when he's pissed.
You've not only had it confirmed that you and the site were lied to with "the few hours to fix the problem" bulls**t but you've also had it confirmed that somebody posting to you as a moderator on PB now wants to police the entire internet just in case someone who posts on PB also posts something they don't like on any other site.
And they ACTUALLY GENUINELY want those who post on PB to know that is their new moderating stance and that mod told you that?? Whoever wrote that to you has flipped their lid TUD. It's the only possible explanation.
If they keep trying to ban me for no reason (because this new insanity isn't even f***ing CLOSE to being one) then by all means feel free to point that staggering fact out. Even the herd and the PB Tories would be hard pushed to justify that lunacy considering how many of them post elsewhere and with even less inhibition than they do on PB.
The fact is I was prevented from posting on PB long BEFORE this moderator started to desperately look for other (frankly crazy) reasons to justify it. You know it, I know it and he knows it.
Mick Pork - or is AlanBrooke or Carlotta in disguise? LOL : It gets even better!
So you DID point out that was the reason this supposed mod gave you and the PB Tories apparently couldn't care less that anything they say on another site can be taken down and used against them by this eccentric mod.
Even Shadsy joined in with the hilarity.
LOL
Do the mods even realise how utterly insane this new moderating policy makes them look??
You now have the PERFECT comeback to any PB Tory by simply asking if they have said anything more unpleasant on another site and whether that meets with PB's mods approval.
You can even turn up the laughter by positing if Carlotta (or anyone else) was posting as someone on Paul Staines (or any other) site and whether that meets with PoliticalBetting's new moderating rules.
Imagine the fun as everyone starts to look for aliases for everyone else on other sites and whether what is said elsewhere meets with this mods approval. Pure Comedy Gold.
It's not even as if this mod has left any wiggle room as he has told you I'm not allowed to post, not because not because of what *I* said, but because of what someone ELSE has told him I supposedly said on another site. Completely and utterly bonkers.
Thank god the mod didn't just allow me back on like he did with Richard Tyndall or PoliticalBetting and TSE could have ended up a complete laughing stock by now.
Hugh : Mick,
Interesting to read of your PB experiences. A similar thing happened to me.
I was banned without warning or explanation. Needless to say, attempts to find out what the heck happened have met with silence, so I remain genuinely mystified as to what exactly my "offence" was.
This happened during a period when TSE was "guest editing" in Mike Smithson's absence.
I know for a fact similar has happened to many other non-Rightwing posters. Bannings and moderation for minor breaches of the (increasingly bizarre) "Site rules". Or in my case no breach of any rule.
Meanwhile, Rightwing posters get away with serious and repeated breaches of those same rules. I have even seen clear libels go unmoderated and unpunished.
I don't know if Mike Smithson is aware of what some of his Moderators are up to. Or whether it's deliberate on the part of mods, or they're simply unable to put their political biases to one side.
Either way, it's clear that PB's Rightwing moderators are discouraging or (in my case) actively preventing left of centre / non-Tory posters.
As a result PB is now nothing more than a sterile Rightwing talking shop.
My predictions for Tuesday's Eurovision semi-final
Marcia is quite right - it's high time for Scot Goes Pop to revert to being a Eurovision blog for a good few days (albeit a Eurovision blog that reserves the right to immediately drop everything if a new referendum poll is published!). I must say I'm a touch underwhelmed by the standard this year - there are certainly songs that I like, but not a huge number, and there's nothing that has really got under my skin in the way that I Feed You My Love and Crisalide did last year. However, if you go back to virtually every Eurovision that took place up to and including the year 2000, there were rarely more than a tiny handful of good songs, and yet the contest was still a great spectacle in a variety of other ways (the utter chaos of Rome 1991 being my own favourite example), so hopefully that will be the case again this time. I do worry that the semi-finals may drag a little more than in recent years, though.
Of course what any Eurovision fan looks out for in the line-up of entrants is old favourites from the past, and as usual there are a few. Most obviously, Valentina Monetta (aka "the only singer in San Marino") is representing her country for a third year in a row. I would imagine that must be some kind of record - Peter, Sue and Marc famously represented Switzerland four times in the 70s and 80s, but not in consecutive years. Monetta's first two entries couldn't have been more different, which is odd because they were both written by Ralph Siegel. The first was an excruciatingly awful - but strangely compelling - novelty song about Facebook, while the second was the aforementioned Crisalide, a powerful pop ballad which in my opinion ought to have been a strong contender to win the whole contest, but which ultimately failed to even make it out of the semi-final. I'm relieved to say this year's effort Maybe is much closer to being in the Crisalide mould, but it's considerably blander, so logic would suggest it probably isn't going to make it through. Strangely enough, though, it's still one of my six or seven favourite songs in the contest - it's got the slightest hint of a "60s/70s Bond theme" vibe to it.
Also returning - although we won't see them until Thursday's semi - are Romania's Paula Seling and Ovi, who finished third in the contest back in 2010 with the song Playing With Fire (which I seem to remember Doug Daniel saying was just about the best Eurovision song he'd ever heard). This year's entry Miracle doesn't have quite such a strong hook, but it's still got tonnes of energy, and up against an unusually weak field it wouldn't completely surprise me if Romania sneak into the top five again.
And last but not least we have Sweden's Sanna Nielsen, who has never actually appeared at Eurovision before, but who has nevertheless been associated with the contest for years and years due to her multiple attempts to win Melodifestivalen - a massive annual Swedish television event in its own right, but which doubles up as the Eurovision national selection. (Although she came closest in 2008 with Empty Room, the one that sticks in my mind the most is Du Och Jag Mot Världen in 2005 - and she certainly looked a bit different back then!) Not only did she finally seize the Melodifestivalen crown this year with Undo, but she's also rated by the bookies as one of only two entries with a serious chance of winning Eurovision. The other is Armenia, which I've listened to a number of times and somehow can't quite picture as a winner - I think the style of the song is going to divide opinion too much. So almost by default I've come to the conclusion that Sanna Nielsen will probably emerge victorious.
In many ways, that wouldn't be great news for the contest, because it would mean a third Scandinavian winner in a row, and the second Swedish win in three years. However, maybe my expectations will be different after watching the semi-finals, and there's always a chance of a slightly weaker song coming out of nowhere to win on the basis of some inspired staging, as Latvia did in 2002 and Azerbaijan did in 2011.
So here's my prediction for the ten qualifiers from tonight's first semi...
Near certainties :
Sweden
Armenia
Ukraine
Hungary
Fairly likely :
Estonia
Azerbaijan
Russia
I'm not at all sure about these but I'll have a punt :
Montenegro
Netherlands
Iceland
That would mean San Marino, Latvia (who are singing a song about baking a cake), Belgium, Portugal, Moldova and Albania all missing out. Of those six, probably Belgium are the most likely to make it through - it's an intensely irritating song, but it does have a big finish. In my personal opinion San Marino, Portugal and Albania all thoroughly deserve a place in the final, but I just can't see it happening unless the juries go for them very heavily.
Marcia pointed out the other day that everyone's new favourite Tory astroturfing campaign 'Vote No Borders' were tragically too late to put forward Flowers of the Union as the UK's Eurovision entry, although of course we shouldn't entirely exclude the possibility that Children of the Universe was originally entitled Children of the United Kingdom before falling foul of the EBU's rules on political lyrics. But it set me thinking about previous Eurovision songs that extolled the virtues of Europe as a united entity - perhaps those could have provided some kind of model for our anti-independence friends? Take for example the Irish entry from 1990, which managed to finish joint second mainly by name-checking pretty much every country in western Europe...
"Don't you remember those Adriatic days?
I miss your laughter and all your little ways
I can still see you in London, walking on Trafalgar Square
And drinking wine in Old Seville, how I wish that we were there
Meet me in Paris on a Champs Élysées night
We could be in Rome again, 'neath the Trevi fountain light
We should be together, maybe we just might
If you could only meet me somewhere in Europe tonight"
A Rory Stewart twist on that song might have reminded us that the 'baa' noise that sheep make in Lanarkshire is uncannily similar to the 'baa' noise that sheep make in Lancashire, before building up to this rousing chorus -
"So I've driven all the way from Penicuik to Hull
Oooh yeah baby, just to get it through your skull
That I don't really care where you hold my hand
Just so long as it's somewhere in the Middleland"
* * *
Sticking to a musical theme, you might remember that at the end of Celtic Connections I mentioned a band called The Cask, who were brave enough to perform a song at the Danny Kyle Open Stage that explicitly called for a Yes vote in the independence referendum. Well, Michael McElligott (who wrote the song) got in touch with me the other day to mention that he's just made a studio recording of it. I've had a listen, and it's rather wonderful. I'm not sure whether I was being given permission to post the sound file here, so to be on the safe side I'd better not, but it'll be available on iTunes soon. Be sure to look out for it - it's called Make Alba Shine.
Of course what any Eurovision fan looks out for in the line-up of entrants is old favourites from the past, and as usual there are a few. Most obviously, Valentina Monetta (aka "the only singer in San Marino") is representing her country for a third year in a row. I would imagine that must be some kind of record - Peter, Sue and Marc famously represented Switzerland four times in the 70s and 80s, but not in consecutive years. Monetta's first two entries couldn't have been more different, which is odd because they were both written by Ralph Siegel. The first was an excruciatingly awful - but strangely compelling - novelty song about Facebook, while the second was the aforementioned Crisalide, a powerful pop ballad which in my opinion ought to have been a strong contender to win the whole contest, but which ultimately failed to even make it out of the semi-final. I'm relieved to say this year's effort Maybe is much closer to being in the Crisalide mould, but it's considerably blander, so logic would suggest it probably isn't going to make it through. Strangely enough, though, it's still one of my six or seven favourite songs in the contest - it's got the slightest hint of a "60s/70s Bond theme" vibe to it.
Also returning - although we won't see them until Thursday's semi - are Romania's Paula Seling and Ovi, who finished third in the contest back in 2010 with the song Playing With Fire (which I seem to remember Doug Daniel saying was just about the best Eurovision song he'd ever heard). This year's entry Miracle doesn't have quite such a strong hook, but it's still got tonnes of energy, and up against an unusually weak field it wouldn't completely surprise me if Romania sneak into the top five again.
And last but not least we have Sweden's Sanna Nielsen, who has never actually appeared at Eurovision before, but who has nevertheless been associated with the contest for years and years due to her multiple attempts to win Melodifestivalen - a massive annual Swedish television event in its own right, but which doubles up as the Eurovision national selection. (Although she came closest in 2008 with Empty Room, the one that sticks in my mind the most is Du Och Jag Mot Världen in 2005 - and she certainly looked a bit different back then!) Not only did she finally seize the Melodifestivalen crown this year with Undo, but she's also rated by the bookies as one of only two entries with a serious chance of winning Eurovision. The other is Armenia, which I've listened to a number of times and somehow can't quite picture as a winner - I think the style of the song is going to divide opinion too much. So almost by default I've come to the conclusion that Sanna Nielsen will probably emerge victorious.
In many ways, that wouldn't be great news for the contest, because it would mean a third Scandinavian winner in a row, and the second Swedish win in three years. However, maybe my expectations will be different after watching the semi-finals, and there's always a chance of a slightly weaker song coming out of nowhere to win on the basis of some inspired staging, as Latvia did in 2002 and Azerbaijan did in 2011.
So here's my prediction for the ten qualifiers from tonight's first semi...
Near certainties :
Sweden
Armenia
Ukraine
Hungary
Fairly likely :
Estonia
Azerbaijan
Russia
I'm not at all sure about these but I'll have a punt :
Montenegro
Netherlands
Iceland
That would mean San Marino, Latvia (who are singing a song about baking a cake), Belgium, Portugal, Moldova and Albania all missing out. Of those six, probably Belgium are the most likely to make it through - it's an intensely irritating song, but it does have a big finish. In my personal opinion San Marino, Portugal and Albania all thoroughly deserve a place in the final, but I just can't see it happening unless the juries go for them very heavily.
Marcia pointed out the other day that everyone's new favourite Tory astroturfing campaign 'Vote No Borders' were tragically too late to put forward Flowers of the Union as the UK's Eurovision entry, although of course we shouldn't entirely exclude the possibility that Children of the Universe was originally entitled Children of the United Kingdom before falling foul of the EBU's rules on political lyrics. But it set me thinking about previous Eurovision songs that extolled the virtues of Europe as a united entity - perhaps those could have provided some kind of model for our anti-independence friends? Take for example the Irish entry from 1990, which managed to finish joint second mainly by name-checking pretty much every country in western Europe...
"Don't you remember those Adriatic days?
I miss your laughter and all your little ways
I can still see you in London, walking on Trafalgar Square
And drinking wine in Old Seville, how I wish that we were there
Meet me in Paris on a Champs Élysées night
We could be in Rome again, 'neath the Trevi fountain light
We should be together, maybe we just might
If you could only meet me somewhere in Europe tonight"
A Rory Stewart twist on that song might have reminded us that the 'baa' noise that sheep make in Lanarkshire is uncannily similar to the 'baa' noise that sheep make in Lancashire, before building up to this rousing chorus -
"So I've driven all the way from Penicuik to Hull
Oooh yeah baby, just to get it through your skull
That I don't really care where you hold my hand
Just so long as it's somewhere in the Middleland"
* * *
Sticking to a musical theme, you might remember that at the end of Celtic Connections I mentioned a band called The Cask, who were brave enough to perform a song at the Danny Kyle Open Stage that explicitly called for a Yes vote in the independence referendum. Well, Michael McElligott (who wrote the song) got in touch with me the other day to mention that he's just made a studio recording of it. I've had a listen, and it's rather wonderful. I'm not sure whether I was being given permission to post the sound file here, so to be on the safe side I'd better not, but it'll be available on iTunes soon. Be sure to look out for it - it's called Make Alba Shine.
Sunday, May 4, 2014
My version of Better Together's cinema ad (I've made a few minor improvements)
You'll have to forgive this being an audio-only version. I don't want to cramp Better Together's style, because after all my face doesn't quite fit into their apparent target demographic (under 21, pretty but not abnormally so, nattily dressed, laughs a lot at random things that probably aren't actually going on just out of shot).
Transcript :
This is a massive decision.
And there'll be no going back.
If we say no to independence in September, there's no guarantee we'll ever get a second chance.
At the very least, this will be the last independence referendum for a generation.
It may be the last in our lifetimes.
And it may be the last one ever.
So if we vote No, and end up being ruled by Tory governments we didn't vote for for another thirty years, it'll be too late for regrets, or for wishing we could turn the clock back and have another go.
This isn't a dress rehearsal.
We have to get the decision right THIS time.
It'll affect not just us, but the opportunities of future generations.
We don't need to be ruled by Westminster to be British.
I don't need to vote against independence to feel British.
I watch Doctor Who.
I appreciate the popular music of Ms Sophie Ellis Bextor.
My favourite stretch of coastal scenery is in Pembrokeshire.
And I think Peter Gibbs is a damn fine weatherman in the finest traditions of Michael Fish.
So what is it about me that is not British just because I want Scotland to choose its own governments?
Hmmm?
Hmmm?
Can you explain that to me, Mr McDougall?
We CAN have the best of both worlds.
Governments we choose ourselves AND an ongoing social union with our friends and neighbours south of the border AND a currency union.
Yes, I know that's three things. I'm THAT greedy.
But luckily, as exclusively revealed to the Guardian newspaper on condition of anonymity by a senior UK government minister, an independent Scotland will "of course" be welcomed into a currency union by the rest of the UK.
So that's a relief.
It means that all we have to do to get the best of both worlds is to vote Yes.
Or we could vote No and get the worst of both worlds - George Osborne AND Richard Baker. (And he's not even the one who used to present the Proms.)
I live here.
But my world goes beyond our borders.
Independence gives us the chance to be part of not just ONE of the biggest economies in the world, but THE biggest economy in the world.
The European Union.
The EU single market is bigger even than the economy of the United States.
But we can only be sure of being part of something bigger if we vote Yes.
If we vote No, UKIP and David Cameron could be taking us towards the EU exit door, and there'll be nothing we can do about it.
That's the story of our lives as part of the UK, isn't it?!
Together in Europe, we are stronger and secure.
Together in Europe, we can make our world the place we want it to be.
But alone and adrift with Dave and Nigel...well, what's our comfort blanket then? Nuclear weapons on the Clyde? We didn't really ask for them either, did we?
Never mind, I suppose we'll be invading another Middle Eastern country soon. That'll keep our minds occupied in the long Tory years ahead.
We want to choose our own governments.
For our jobs.
For our opportunities.
For our future.
And most of all because that's how democracy is supposed to work.
We want the best of both worlds.
So let's not leave! (Like all those multi-millionaire Tory supporters are pretending they'll do in the event of a Yes victory.)
We are Better...
...off choosing our own governments. Vote Yes.
Friday, May 2, 2014
Huge surge in support for the SNP in Caol and Mallaig by-election
The first Thursday of May is the traditional slot allotted for local elections in the UK, so there can't have been many years when the occasion was marked with just one solitary by-election in the Highlands. Incredibly, the SNP were the only one of the main parties that even bothered turning up, but they'll be glad they did after this outcome (changes from the 2012 result in brackets) -
Independent Thompson : 39.0% (n/a)
SNP : 30.4% (+15.5)
Independent Watson : 22.5% (n/a)
UKIP : 5.6% (n/a)
Scottish Christian Party : 2.6% (+1.0)
I was going to make the obvious comment about the Scottish Christians being 'So Macho' for putting in an appearance when Labour and the Tories didn't, but alas, it appears that the unspoofable George Hargreaves is no longer the party leader.
Obviously this was an unusual contest, and it would be unwise to read too much into it. But given that one of the Five Great Pillars of the Ian Smart conspiracy theory about how the pollsters are deliberately overstating the Yes vote is based on the questionable claim that the SNP haven't been doing very well in "real elections", it's worth pointing out that this is in fact only the fifth real election to have taken place so far this year, and it's a rather splendid result by any standards.
If you're in Kilsyth this afternoon, watch out for collapsing pillars.
Independent Thompson : 39.0% (n/a)
SNP : 30.4% (+15.5)
Independent Watson : 22.5% (n/a)
UKIP : 5.6% (n/a)
Scottish Christian Party : 2.6% (+1.0)
I was going to make the obvious comment about the Scottish Christians being 'So Macho' for putting in an appearance when Labour and the Tories didn't, but alas, it appears that the unspoofable George Hargreaves is no longer the party leader.
Obviously this was an unusual contest, and it would be unwise to read too much into it. But given that one of the Five Great Pillars of the Ian Smart conspiracy theory about how the pollsters are deliberately overstating the Yes vote is based on the questionable claim that the SNP haven't been doing very well in "real elections", it's worth pointing out that this is in fact only the fifth real election to have taken place so far this year, and it's a rather splendid result by any standards.
If you're in Kilsyth this afternoon, watch out for collapsing pillars.
Thursday, May 1, 2014
Pro-independence campaign cut the gap to yet another record low in dramatic new YouGov poll
A new referendum poll has just been released on the Channel 4 News website. It was conducted by YouGov, traditionally one of the most No-friendly pollsters, and shows the No lead falling to a new record low for the campaign so far -
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 37% (n/c)
No 51% (-1)
Due to rounding, the position is unchanged when Don't Knows are excluded (although of course the numbers still replicate the record high for Yes recorded in the last survey) -
Yes 42% (n/c)
No 58% (n/c)
For the avoidance of doubt, Channel 4's reporting of this poll is utterly and absurdly misleading, and doubtless we can "look forward" to more of the same in televisual form at 7pm tonight. They are comparing apples with oranges (or apples with tractors, more like) by suggesting that this poll is somehow reasonably OK for the No campaign because it shows the lead as being higher than in "other recent results", which is presumably a reference to ICM, Survation and Panelbase polls. The reality is, of course, that different polling organisations have been producing wildly different numbers in this campaign, and the only way of making sense of any new poll is to compare it with previous polls from the same company.
YouGov suggested that the No camp reached their high watermark in August of last year, with a 59% share of the vote and a seemingly impregnable 30% lead over Yes. The lead dipped sharply to 20% the following month, which some commentators dismissed as an illusion caused by methodological changes. The figures then seemed to stabilise somewhat, and until a few weeks ago the lead had still not fallen below 18%, allowing YouGov's unionist-oriented chief Peter Kellner to claim a "no change" position - even though almost every other pollster was showing a statistically significant drop in the No lead since the publication of the White Paper. Kellner's fantasy finally went out of the window in late March when YouGov showed the No lead slumping to 15% - easily its lowest of the campaign so far, and just half of the August lead. Now it has slipped even further to 14%.
Professor John Curtice will doubtless issue a caution that a one-point drop in the No lead is well within the margin of error and is not necessarily significant in statistical terms, and that is perfectly true. But the same could initially have been said about the 3% drop in the No lead in the previous YouGov poll. This new poll does two things - it makes it dramatically less likely that the No lead only fell outside its normal range in the last poll due to normal sampling variation, and it opens up at least the possibility that there has been even further slippage in the No lead since March.
Some Yes supporters may be encouraged by the trend, but still wonder if it's possible to achieve an outright victory when any pollster is showing a 14% lead for our opponents with four-and-a-half months to go until polling day. There are two answers to that. Firstly, it depends on whether YouGov are actually getting their methodology right. If ICM and Panelbase are closer to the truth, then YouGov are probably overstating the No lead by about 10%, which means that Yes only require an extremely modest 2-3% swing to win (in YouGov terms that would still leave the No campaign with a 'phantom' lead in the region of 9-11%). The second answer, of course, is that even if YouGov are right, Yes would still only require a swing that is smaller than the one the SNP achieved over a shorter timescale in the run-up to the 2011 election.
YouGov also asked a series of supplementary questions on a range of standard scare stories about independence, and the results are nothing short of a horror show for the No campaign. By a margin of 45% to 38%, respondents think that an independent Scotland would be able to use the pound as part of a formal currency union. (Surely that doesn't mean we think that all three London parties are fibbing?) By a comfortable margin of 46% to 34%, voters think that an independent Scotland would be able to remain a member of the EU. (Andrew Marr thinks they're wrong, he has to say.) By a margin of 41% to 38%, they think an independent Scotland would be able to maintain state pensions at the current level, and by a margin of 43% to 40% they do not anticipate that major businesses and employers would leave Scotland after independence.
But look on the bright side, Mr McDougall - we still have no idea whether voters bought the scare story about the pandas being whisked away. Maybe that should be the subject of your next internal poll?
As usual, YouGov have indulged in their eccentric practice of splitting people who recall voting SNP in 2011 into two groups, and weighting them separately. One of the groups is not upweighted at all, while the other group is upweighted massively. It's very troubling that YouGov never reveal the breakdown of voting intentions for those two groups, because until and unless they do the suspicion is bound to linger that this procedure is largely the explanation for the sharp divergence with the more Yes-friendly results produced by all of the other online polling companies. However, that's only speculation.
* * *
SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS
As you'd expect, the latest update of this blog's Poll of Polls shows the No lead slipping to another all-time low. It now stands at just 11.2%.
MEAN AVERAGE (not excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 35.8% (n/c)
No 47.0% (-0.2)
MEAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 43.2% (+0.1)
No 56.8% (-0.1)
MEDIAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 43.6% (+0.2)
No 56.4% (-0.2)
(The Poll of Polls is based on a rolling average of the most recent poll from each of the pollsters that have been active in the referendum campaign since September 2013, and that adhere to British Polling Council rules. At present, there are six - YouGov, TNS-BMRB, Survation, Panelbase, Ipsos-Mori and ICM. Whenever a new poll is published, it replaces the last poll from the same company in the sample. Changes in the Poll of Polls are generally glacial in nature due to the fact that only a small portion of the sample is updated each time.)
Here are the long-term trend figures, with the previous numbers recalculated to exclude the inactive pollster Angus Reid...
The No campaign's lead in the Poll of Polls headline figures :
Sep 2013 - 21.6%
Sep 2013 - 21.4%
Sep 2013 - 19.4%
Oct 2013 - 18.8%
Oct 2013 - 18.4%
Oct 2013 - 18.2%
Nov 2013 - 18.4%
Nov 2013 - 18.0%
Dec 2013 - 17.0%
Dec 2013 - 16.8%
Dec 2013 - 16.4%
Jan 2014 - 14.4%
Jan 2014 - 14.2%
Jan 2014 - 14.2%
Jan 2014 - 15.2%
Feb 2014 - 15.0%
Feb 2014 - 15.5%
Feb 2014 - 15.5%
Feb 2014 - 13.7%
Feb 2014 - 13.3%
Feb 2014 - 14.2%
Mar 2014 - 14.2%
Mar 2014 - 14.5%
Mar 2014 - 14.5%
Mar 2014 - 14.7%
Mar 2014 - 13.8%
Mar 2014 - 13.0%
Mar 2014 - 12.5%
Apr 2014 - 12.5%
Apr 2014 - 12.7%
Apr 2014 - 12.7%
Apr 2014 - 12.3%
Apr 2014 - 11.4%
May 2014 - 11.2%
And finally, an update of the averages for the four online pollsters that have reported so far this year (YouGov, ICM, Survation and Panelbase) -
MEAN AVERAGE OF ONLINE POLLSTERS (not excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 38.5% (n/c)
No 46.0% (-0.3)
MEAN AVERAGE OF ONLINE POLLSTERS (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 45.6% (+0.2)
No 54.4% (-0.2)
MEDIAN AVERAGE OF ONLINE POLLSTERS (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 46.1% (n/c)
No 53.9% (n/c)
Should Scotland be an independent country?
Yes 37% (n/c)
No 51% (-1)
Due to rounding, the position is unchanged when Don't Knows are excluded (although of course the numbers still replicate the record high for Yes recorded in the last survey) -
Yes 42% (n/c)
No 58% (n/c)
For the avoidance of doubt, Channel 4's reporting of this poll is utterly and absurdly misleading, and doubtless we can "look forward" to more of the same in televisual form at 7pm tonight. They are comparing apples with oranges (or apples with tractors, more like) by suggesting that this poll is somehow reasonably OK for the No campaign because it shows the lead as being higher than in "other recent results", which is presumably a reference to ICM, Survation and Panelbase polls. The reality is, of course, that different polling organisations have been producing wildly different numbers in this campaign, and the only way of making sense of any new poll is to compare it with previous polls from the same company.
YouGov suggested that the No camp reached their high watermark in August of last year, with a 59% share of the vote and a seemingly impregnable 30% lead over Yes. The lead dipped sharply to 20% the following month, which some commentators dismissed as an illusion caused by methodological changes. The figures then seemed to stabilise somewhat, and until a few weeks ago the lead had still not fallen below 18%, allowing YouGov's unionist-oriented chief Peter Kellner to claim a "no change" position - even though almost every other pollster was showing a statistically significant drop in the No lead since the publication of the White Paper. Kellner's fantasy finally went out of the window in late March when YouGov showed the No lead slumping to 15% - easily its lowest of the campaign so far, and just half of the August lead. Now it has slipped even further to 14%.
Professor John Curtice will doubtless issue a caution that a one-point drop in the No lead is well within the margin of error and is not necessarily significant in statistical terms, and that is perfectly true. But the same could initially have been said about the 3% drop in the No lead in the previous YouGov poll. This new poll does two things - it makes it dramatically less likely that the No lead only fell outside its normal range in the last poll due to normal sampling variation, and it opens up at least the possibility that there has been even further slippage in the No lead since March.
Some Yes supporters may be encouraged by the trend, but still wonder if it's possible to achieve an outright victory when any pollster is showing a 14% lead for our opponents with four-and-a-half months to go until polling day. There are two answers to that. Firstly, it depends on whether YouGov are actually getting their methodology right. If ICM and Panelbase are closer to the truth, then YouGov are probably overstating the No lead by about 10%, which means that Yes only require an extremely modest 2-3% swing to win (in YouGov terms that would still leave the No campaign with a 'phantom' lead in the region of 9-11%). The second answer, of course, is that even if YouGov are right, Yes would still only require a swing that is smaller than the one the SNP achieved over a shorter timescale in the run-up to the 2011 election.
YouGov also asked a series of supplementary questions on a range of standard scare stories about independence, and the results are nothing short of a horror show for the No campaign. By a margin of 45% to 38%, respondents think that an independent Scotland would be able to use the pound as part of a formal currency union. (Surely that doesn't mean we think that all three London parties are fibbing?) By a comfortable margin of 46% to 34%, voters think that an independent Scotland would be able to remain a member of the EU. (Andrew Marr thinks they're wrong, he has to say.) By a margin of 41% to 38%, they think an independent Scotland would be able to maintain state pensions at the current level, and by a margin of 43% to 40% they do not anticipate that major businesses and employers would leave Scotland after independence.
But look on the bright side, Mr McDougall - we still have no idea whether voters bought the scare story about the pandas being whisked away. Maybe that should be the subject of your next internal poll?
As usual, YouGov have indulged in their eccentric practice of splitting people who recall voting SNP in 2011 into two groups, and weighting them separately. One of the groups is not upweighted at all, while the other group is upweighted massively. It's very troubling that YouGov never reveal the breakdown of voting intentions for those two groups, because until and unless they do the suspicion is bound to linger that this procedure is largely the explanation for the sharp divergence with the more Yes-friendly results produced by all of the other online polling companies. However, that's only speculation.
* * *
SCOT GOES POP POLL OF POLLS
As you'd expect, the latest update of this blog's Poll of Polls shows the No lead slipping to another all-time low. It now stands at just 11.2%.
MEAN AVERAGE (not excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 35.8% (n/c)
No 47.0% (-0.2)
MEAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 43.2% (+0.1)
No 56.8% (-0.1)
MEDIAN AVERAGE (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 43.6% (+0.2)
No 56.4% (-0.2)
(The Poll of Polls is based on a rolling average of the most recent poll from each of the pollsters that have been active in the referendum campaign since September 2013, and that adhere to British Polling Council rules. At present, there are six - YouGov, TNS-BMRB, Survation, Panelbase, Ipsos-Mori and ICM. Whenever a new poll is published, it replaces the last poll from the same company in the sample. Changes in the Poll of Polls are generally glacial in nature due to the fact that only a small portion of the sample is updated each time.)
Here are the long-term trend figures, with the previous numbers recalculated to exclude the inactive pollster Angus Reid...
The No campaign's lead in the Poll of Polls headline figures :
Sep 2013 - 21.6%
Sep 2013 - 21.4%
Sep 2013 - 19.4%
Oct 2013 - 18.8%
Oct 2013 - 18.4%
Oct 2013 - 18.2%
Nov 2013 - 18.4%
Nov 2013 - 18.0%
Dec 2013 - 17.0%
Dec 2013 - 16.8%
Dec 2013 - 16.4%
Jan 2014 - 14.4%
Jan 2014 - 14.2%
Jan 2014 - 14.2%
Jan 2014 - 15.2%
Feb 2014 - 15.0%
Feb 2014 - 15.5%
Feb 2014 - 15.5%
Feb 2014 - 13.7%
Feb 2014 - 13.3%
Feb 2014 - 14.2%
Mar 2014 - 14.2%
Mar 2014 - 14.5%
Mar 2014 - 14.5%
Mar 2014 - 14.7%
Mar 2014 - 13.8%
Mar 2014 - 13.0%
Mar 2014 - 12.5%
Apr 2014 - 12.5%
Apr 2014 - 12.7%
Apr 2014 - 12.7%
Apr 2014 - 12.3%
Apr 2014 - 11.4%
May 2014 - 11.2%
And finally, an update of the averages for the four online pollsters that have reported so far this year (YouGov, ICM, Survation and Panelbase) -
MEAN AVERAGE OF ONLINE POLLSTERS (not excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 38.5% (n/c)
No 46.0% (-0.3)
MEAN AVERAGE OF ONLINE POLLSTERS (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 45.6% (+0.2)
No 54.4% (-0.2)
MEDIAN AVERAGE OF ONLINE POLLSTERS (excluding Don't Knows) :
Yes 46.1% (n/c)
No 53.9% (n/c)
"It's not you, it's me"
Last week's post 'The Mad, Mad World of Rory Stewart' was originally going to have the words 'and Benedict Brogan' tacked on to its title, but I realised there was probably only so much lunacy I could take in one sitting. You might remember that the Telegraph man caused a flurry of excitement a few weeks back by claiming that the consensus view in Westminster was that David Cameron would have to resign as Prime Minister if Scotland votes for independence in September. I had a read through some of the relevant articles to see if I could understand the reasons for that, but I didn't really make much progress, not least because the version of the facts that Brogan built his 'logic' upon was so utterly alien from anything that we would recognise as being true. In desperation, I even listened to Brogan being interviewed at length by Iain Dale on LBC - an intensely painful experience that was the rough equivalent of trying to learn about the subtleties of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by watching Sarah Palin being interviewed on Fox News. But I did eventually start to get to grips with the Gospel according to Benedict. It seems Scotland has reached the brink of independence for just three reasons -
1) In the 1980s, the Scottish Labour party under Gordon Brown (apparently the greater seniority of John Smith and Donald Dewar was a figment of our imagination) opportunistically whipped up anti-Tory and "nationalist" sentiment. Please note that there was no question of the Thatcherites having blundered with their quasi-colonial approach to ruling Scotland, or with their introduction of policies that were repugnant to the Scottish population. There was also no question of us Scots having spontaneously reached our own verdict on whether Thatcherism was consistent with our values or not. No, the whole thing was a Gordon Brown plot, and if Labour had only acted "responsibly" we'd have all remained much more docile, just as nature intended. Brown's recent intervention on behalf of Better Together should therefore be seen as a conscious attempt to "atone" for his sins.
2) Many southern Tories are no longer really unionists, because they have become too obsessed with Euroscepticism. And please note that the only conceivable way in which a Tory can ever be a problem for the No campaign is through not having a sufficiently cultish devotion to the Union. This became clear when Dale invited Brogan to explain his curious idea that David Cameron could somehow be an asset for Better Together if he were to set up base in Glasgow for a few weeks. You might have expected that Brogan was going to tell us that Cameron could project a liberal and tolerant impression of Toryism that was more in tune with Scottish values, or that he was the man to offer constitutional reforms within the UK that would accommodate Scotland's desire to substantially govern itself. But no - all Brogan had in mind was that "you have to remember that Cameron has always been a very strong unionist, in contrast to some of his colleagues". Well that's a relief, because if there's one thing Scotland absolutely LOATHES about the Tories, it's their failure to bang on about the bloody Union all the time.
3) David Cameron decided to hold an independence referendum to call Alex Salmond's "bluff". Yes, really. If you thought that the Scottish Government legislated for the referendum after putting it in their manifesto and then receiving an overwhelming electoral mandate, you were very much mistaken. Nope, it was all Dave's idea - and that's why he'll have to go if his "masterplan" backfires. Just to emphasise this point, the first caller to Iain Dale's phone-in after the interview said that he didn't necessarily disagree with "Cameron's idea" of holding a referendum on Scottish independence, but that if he was going to do it he should have given everyone in the UK a vote. The mind boggles.
If you're spotting an overarching theme here, it's probably a denial of Scottish agency at every stage of the process. The possibility that the independence movement may be a spontaneous and rational reaction to the failings of the Westminster political class isn't even up for discussion. We didn't decide for ourselves that we despised Thatcherism, we were brainwashed into thinking that by Labour. Our elected government didn't decide to hold a referendum and then run a good campaign, it was just a cock-up by our betters in London. And although mistakes by the Westminster political class have got us to where we are (it couldn't possibly have been anything else, after all, because Westminster is God and is the determinant of everything that happens), those mistakes were strictly confined to the very narrow domain of typical Home County Tory preoccupations, such as Euroscepticism.
As attempts by London journalists to rationalise the referendum go, this one is very much of the "it's not you, it's me" variety. Apparently a Yes vote would trigger Cameron's resignation because it would be a "vote of no confidence" in him. Well, such straightforward cause-and-effect would certainly be a novelty. Has no-one in the unionist London press noticed that we've given the Tories a resounding vote of no confidence in every single general election since 1959, but have had little to show for our efforts? That is kind of the issue here.
* * *
Our old friend Ian Smart appeared on Newsnight Scotland last night (again). Can someone explain to me why he was allowed to get away with the conscious and cynical lie that Labour for Independence "turned out to be" a front organisation comprised of SNP councillors pretending to be Labour? I don't blame Andrew Tickell for not jumping in at that point, because he was there largely to offer his legal analysis rather than indulge in partisan knockabout on behalf of the Yes campaign. But it really is incumbent on the presenter to instantly correct malicious falsehoods that are intended to lead voters astray.
Earlier in the programme, there had been a rather indulgent package about "No Borders", a hitherto unheard of organisation that appears to be the anti-independence campaign's answer to National Collective. After Better Together's sneering comments about National Collective in the Herald the other day, I can only salute the Yes campaign's restraint in not suggesting that No Borders' plans to "reconstruct Flodden through the medium of dance" are unlikely to win many votes for the union.
1) In the 1980s, the Scottish Labour party under Gordon Brown (apparently the greater seniority of John Smith and Donald Dewar was a figment of our imagination) opportunistically whipped up anti-Tory and "nationalist" sentiment. Please note that there was no question of the Thatcherites having blundered with their quasi-colonial approach to ruling Scotland, or with their introduction of policies that were repugnant to the Scottish population. There was also no question of us Scots having spontaneously reached our own verdict on whether Thatcherism was consistent with our values or not. No, the whole thing was a Gordon Brown plot, and if Labour had only acted "responsibly" we'd have all remained much more docile, just as nature intended. Brown's recent intervention on behalf of Better Together should therefore be seen as a conscious attempt to "atone" for his sins.
2) Many southern Tories are no longer really unionists, because they have become too obsessed with Euroscepticism. And please note that the only conceivable way in which a Tory can ever be a problem for the No campaign is through not having a sufficiently cultish devotion to the Union. This became clear when Dale invited Brogan to explain his curious idea that David Cameron could somehow be an asset for Better Together if he were to set up base in Glasgow for a few weeks. You might have expected that Brogan was going to tell us that Cameron could project a liberal and tolerant impression of Toryism that was more in tune with Scottish values, or that he was the man to offer constitutional reforms within the UK that would accommodate Scotland's desire to substantially govern itself. But no - all Brogan had in mind was that "you have to remember that Cameron has always been a very strong unionist, in contrast to some of his colleagues". Well that's a relief, because if there's one thing Scotland absolutely LOATHES about the Tories, it's their failure to bang on about the bloody Union all the time.
3) David Cameron decided to hold an independence referendum to call Alex Salmond's "bluff". Yes, really. If you thought that the Scottish Government legislated for the referendum after putting it in their manifesto and then receiving an overwhelming electoral mandate, you were very much mistaken. Nope, it was all Dave's idea - and that's why he'll have to go if his "masterplan" backfires. Just to emphasise this point, the first caller to Iain Dale's phone-in after the interview said that he didn't necessarily disagree with "Cameron's idea" of holding a referendum on Scottish independence, but that if he was going to do it he should have given everyone in the UK a vote. The mind boggles.
If you're spotting an overarching theme here, it's probably a denial of Scottish agency at every stage of the process. The possibility that the independence movement may be a spontaneous and rational reaction to the failings of the Westminster political class isn't even up for discussion. We didn't decide for ourselves that we despised Thatcherism, we were brainwashed into thinking that by Labour. Our elected government didn't decide to hold a referendum and then run a good campaign, it was just a cock-up by our betters in London. And although mistakes by the Westminster political class have got us to where we are (it couldn't possibly have been anything else, after all, because Westminster is God and is the determinant of everything that happens), those mistakes were strictly confined to the very narrow domain of typical Home County Tory preoccupations, such as Euroscepticism.
As attempts by London journalists to rationalise the referendum go, this one is very much of the "it's not you, it's me" variety. Apparently a Yes vote would trigger Cameron's resignation because it would be a "vote of no confidence" in him. Well, such straightforward cause-and-effect would certainly be a novelty. Has no-one in the unionist London press noticed that we've given the Tories a resounding vote of no confidence in every single general election since 1959, but have had little to show for our efforts? That is kind of the issue here.
* * *
Our old friend Ian Smart appeared on Newsnight Scotland last night (again). Can someone explain to me why he was allowed to get away with the conscious and cynical lie that Labour for Independence "turned out to be" a front organisation comprised of SNP councillors pretending to be Labour? I don't blame Andrew Tickell for not jumping in at that point, because he was there largely to offer his legal analysis rather than indulge in partisan knockabout on behalf of the Yes campaign. But it really is incumbent on the presenter to instantly correct malicious falsehoods that are intended to lead voters astray.
Earlier in the programme, there had been a rather indulgent package about "No Borders", a hitherto unheard of organisation that appears to be the anti-independence campaign's answer to National Collective. After Better Together's sneering comments about National Collective in the Herald the other day, I can only salute the Yes campaign's restraint in not suggesting that No Borders' plans to "reconstruct Flodden through the medium of dance" are unlikely to win many votes for the union.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Wisdom on Wednesday : More from Parnell
"Why should Ireland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Ireland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation."
Said by Charles Stewart Parnell, leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party at Westminster in the late 19th Century. Now, can you think of any other nation to which his maxim might possibly apply? For some reason TV weather forecasts have popped into my head...
Said by Charles Stewart Parnell, leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party at Westminster in the late 19th Century. Now, can you think of any other nation to which his maxim might possibly apply? For some reason TV weather forecasts have popped into my head...
YouGov survey puts SNP in pole position for European elections
There have been so many different polls over the last few weeks that it's possible I've lost track somewhere along the line, but I'm fairly sure this is the first time YouGov have interviewed a full-scale sample of Scottish respondents on their European Parliament voting intentions for next month (we've had a few straws in the wind by way of subsamples, but no more than that).
SNP 33%
Labour 31%
Conservatives 12%
UKIP 10%
Liberal Democrats 7%
Others 6%
As for the apportionment of Scotland's six seats in the parliament, that works out as...
SNP 3
Labour 2
Conservatives 1
It's possible to look at these findings in either a 'glass half full' or 'glass half empty' sort of way. On the one hand YouGov are agreeing with ICM and Survation that the SNP have the lead in the popular vote and are in line to finally take that elusive third seat. But on the other hand YouGov differ from the other pollsters in suggesting that the SNP's position is fairly precarious. It's well within the margin of error that Labour could win the popular vote, and that either Labour or UKIP could snatch the one seat that is generally assumed to be hanging in the balance. (If UKIP are in with a shout of outpolling the Tories there could actually be two seats in the balance.)
I'm inclined to look on the sunny side of life on this occasion, though. In recent times YouGov have established a reputation not only as a No-friendly pollster, but also as the BPC pollster that tends to show the worst position for the SNP at Holyrood. That being the case, it wouldn't have surprised me if YouGov had contradicted ICM and Survation to the point of actually giving Labour the outright lead in this poll. The fact that hasn't happened must surely increase the likelihood that the SNP do indeed have a genuine lead on the ground.
The jury is still out on how big that lead is, though, and these new numbers will hopefully underline the importance of natural SNP supporters not mucking around with misconceived 'tactical voting' for the Greens. Unfortunately, it does now look as if UKIP and their repulsive lead candidate David Coburn are in with a fighting chance of nicking a Scottish seat, but if they are ultimately prevented from doing so it will be either the SNP or Labour who save the day. The Greens are absolutely nowhere in this race, and their campaign tactic of framing the election as a straight choice between themselves and UKIP for the final seat looks ever more disreputable by the minute. To put it more bluntly, the grossly misleading Green campaign could easily end up being directly responsible for a UKIP breakthrough.
Patrick Harvie is undoubtedly one of the Yes campaign's greatest assets, but it's hard not to sigh in despair at the double standard he's displayed over the last couple of days. He's demanded that Christians for Independence return their donation from Brian Souter, not so much on the grounds of Souter's views on homosexuality, but on the grounds that Souter tried to subvert democracy with a "sham referendum" on Section 28. Well, I didn't approve of that referendum any more than Harvie did, and I followed the advice not to return my ballot paper. But there was nothing illegal about what Souter did - in fact, leaving aside the distasteful nature of the views that motivated it, I'd have to concede it was a fairly clever campaigning wheeze. Certainly no more or less objectionable than the Greens hoodwinking people into thinking that the Holyrood regional list vote is some kind of "second preference" vote, or than the Greens fibbing about being the only party capable of stopping UKIP. All of these tactics are underhand and exasperating, but not illegitimate, and none of them are sufficiently dreadful as to require the perpetrators to be excommunicated from the entire democratic process, as Harvie seems to think Souter should be.
* * *
In the European Parliament, the SNP sit in the left-wing Green/European Free Alliance group, and the Tories sit in the rebel right-wing group they largely created themselves, the ECR. The current predictions are that the two groups will be tied for overall fifth place, with 41 seats apiece. So the exact breakdown of seats in Scotland could conceivably have a much wider significance than we realise.
SNP 33%
Labour 31%
Conservatives 12%
UKIP 10%
Liberal Democrats 7%
Others 6%
As for the apportionment of Scotland's six seats in the parliament, that works out as...
SNP 3
Labour 2
Conservatives 1
It's possible to look at these findings in either a 'glass half full' or 'glass half empty' sort of way. On the one hand YouGov are agreeing with ICM and Survation that the SNP have the lead in the popular vote and are in line to finally take that elusive third seat. But on the other hand YouGov differ from the other pollsters in suggesting that the SNP's position is fairly precarious. It's well within the margin of error that Labour could win the popular vote, and that either Labour or UKIP could snatch the one seat that is generally assumed to be hanging in the balance. (If UKIP are in with a shout of outpolling the Tories there could actually be two seats in the balance.)
I'm inclined to look on the sunny side of life on this occasion, though. In recent times YouGov have established a reputation not only as a No-friendly pollster, but also as the BPC pollster that tends to show the worst position for the SNP at Holyrood. That being the case, it wouldn't have surprised me if YouGov had contradicted ICM and Survation to the point of actually giving Labour the outright lead in this poll. The fact that hasn't happened must surely increase the likelihood that the SNP do indeed have a genuine lead on the ground.
The jury is still out on how big that lead is, though, and these new numbers will hopefully underline the importance of natural SNP supporters not mucking around with misconceived 'tactical voting' for the Greens. Unfortunately, it does now look as if UKIP and their repulsive lead candidate David Coburn are in with a fighting chance of nicking a Scottish seat, but if they are ultimately prevented from doing so it will be either the SNP or Labour who save the day. The Greens are absolutely nowhere in this race, and their campaign tactic of framing the election as a straight choice between themselves and UKIP for the final seat looks ever more disreputable by the minute. To put it more bluntly, the grossly misleading Green campaign could easily end up being directly responsible for a UKIP breakthrough.
Patrick Harvie is undoubtedly one of the Yes campaign's greatest assets, but it's hard not to sigh in despair at the double standard he's displayed over the last couple of days. He's demanded that Christians for Independence return their donation from Brian Souter, not so much on the grounds of Souter's views on homosexuality, but on the grounds that Souter tried to subvert democracy with a "sham referendum" on Section 28. Well, I didn't approve of that referendum any more than Harvie did, and I followed the advice not to return my ballot paper. But there was nothing illegal about what Souter did - in fact, leaving aside the distasteful nature of the views that motivated it, I'd have to concede it was a fairly clever campaigning wheeze. Certainly no more or less objectionable than the Greens hoodwinking people into thinking that the Holyrood regional list vote is some kind of "second preference" vote, or than the Greens fibbing about being the only party capable of stopping UKIP. All of these tactics are underhand and exasperating, but not illegitimate, and none of them are sufficiently dreadful as to require the perpetrators to be excommunicated from the entire democratic process, as Harvie seems to think Souter should be.
* * *
In the European Parliament, the SNP sit in the left-wing Green/European Free Alliance group, and the Tories sit in the rebel right-wing group they largely created themselves, the ECR. The current predictions are that the two groups will be tied for overall fifth place, with 41 seats apiece. So the exact breakdown of seats in Scotland could conceivably have a much wider significance than we realise.
Monday, April 28, 2014
Meet your ill-fitting match
In the past, 'vote match' and 'political compass' type questionnaires have quite accurately reflected my natural preference for the SNP - I've occasionally been matched slightly closer to the Scottish Greens, but that's fair enough given that they're a pro-independence party. But Unlock Democracy's latest version of Vote Match for the European elections is an absolute abomination. There are such a huge number of questions about environmental regulation that it was obvious I was going to be steered towards the Greens, which is fine (I'm not going to vote for them, obviously, not least because they haven't got a prayer of winning a seat), but my jaw dropped to the floor when I was told that my second preference ought to be Labour, not the SNP. How on Earth could this possibly have happened, given that I was even allowed to add particular weight to my pro-independence and pro-immigration answers? The explanation, it appears, is that Unlock Democracy have included a huge number of questions to which the SNP's response was not 'agree' or 'disagree', but 'neither'. Examples include :
"The UK should only hold a referendum on its membership of the EU if new powers are transferred to Brussels"
"The EU should introduce stronger environmental standards for shale gas extraction ('fracking')."
"More foreign policy areas should be agreed at an EU level."
"Allowing employees to work more than 48 hours a week is open to abuse by employers."
So simply be expressing a view on subjects that the SNP are supposedly agnostic about, my match drifts away from the party. And I use the word 'supposedly' advisedly - for example, this is the SNP's explanation for saying 'neither' to the question about a 48-hour working limit...
"We have particular concerns over the unintended consequences of strict working hour limits on public services in remote areas."
That does not exactly sound like blue-blooded Thatcherism to me. Memo to Unlock Democracy : if someone is pro-independence, pro-Europe and pro-immigration, they're highly likely to prefer Nicola Sturgeon to Yvette Cooper. Back to the drawing-board, guys, unless you want to start turning into YouGov.
* * *
A couple of other things you might be interested in : National Collective are looking for £30,000 funding for Yestival, a month-long cultural Festival of Yes taking place in the summer (the choice of name will doubtless delight the snooty types who still think that 'Scolympians' was an abomination).
I'm always a bit nervous about publicising 'alternative' pro-independence fundraisers in case it diverts potential funds from the official Yes campaign, but I'm sure everyone reading this is perfectly capable of deciding for themselves how best to invest their hard-earned cash! It's worth noting, though, that now is the ideal time to donate to Yes Scotland, because there are only a few short weeks left before the strict campaign spending limits kick in.
And here's something you can do that won't cost a penny - why not 'like' the Facebook page of Christians for Independence? The Tories issued a very silly press release yesterday that tried to read huge significance into the fact that the page only had 115 likes (it's now up to 142).
"The UK should only hold a referendum on its membership of the EU if new powers are transferred to Brussels"
"The EU should introduce stronger environmental standards for shale gas extraction ('fracking')."
"More foreign policy areas should be agreed at an EU level."
"Allowing employees to work more than 48 hours a week is open to abuse by employers."
So simply be expressing a view on subjects that the SNP are supposedly agnostic about, my match drifts away from the party. And I use the word 'supposedly' advisedly - for example, this is the SNP's explanation for saying 'neither' to the question about a 48-hour working limit...
"We have particular concerns over the unintended consequences of strict working hour limits on public services in remote areas."
That does not exactly sound like blue-blooded Thatcherism to me. Memo to Unlock Democracy : if someone is pro-independence, pro-Europe and pro-immigration, they're highly likely to prefer Nicola Sturgeon to Yvette Cooper. Back to the drawing-board, guys, unless you want to start turning into YouGov.
* * *
A couple of other things you might be interested in : National Collective are looking for £30,000 funding for Yestival, a month-long cultural Festival of Yes taking place in the summer (the choice of name will doubtless delight the snooty types who still think that 'Scolympians' was an abomination).
I'm always a bit nervous about publicising 'alternative' pro-independence fundraisers in case it diverts potential funds from the official Yes campaign, but I'm sure everyone reading this is perfectly capable of deciding for themselves how best to invest their hard-earned cash! It's worth noting, though, that now is the ideal time to donate to Yes Scotland, because there are only a few short weeks left before the strict campaign spending limits kick in.
And here's something you can do that won't cost a penny - why not 'like' the Facebook page of Christians for Independence? The Tories issued a very silly press release yesterday that tried to read huge significance into the fact that the page only had 115 likes (it's now up to 142).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)