Apologies if this blog is giving the impression of turning into a pro-Corbyn site, because from a hard-headed tactical point of view I'm inclined to think it would be much better for the SNP if Labour elect Continuity Miliband and proceed with their slow, intensely boring descent into irrelevance. But some of the nonsense being spouted by panic-stricken Blairites really deserves to be called out. There's a downright offensive article in Labour Uncut today by Paul Richards, who with no trace of irony refers to rank-and-file Labour members who diverged from the leadership line in the 1980s as "non-entities", but then whinges about a trade unionist who referred to Blairism as "a virus" that needs to be stamped out. Here's a thought - if the Blairites disapproved of any threats to harmonious camaraderie, wouldn't it have been better not to give their own faction of the party a specific name, and then boast about that faction's triumph over the left by plastering the name over every Labour manifesto and conference backdrop while Blair was leader? Wouldn't it have been better not to make the total exclusion of the left from the cabinet or Shadow Cabinet a test of 'sanity' and ideological cleanliness, as Liz Kendall did in one of the recent televised leadership debates?
Richards also says this -
"There’s Jeremy Corbyn himself, obviously, who has been a hardcore Bennite for 30 years...never sullying his political purity with a single minute on the front bench."
It's true that Corbyn has never been on the front bench, but the snide implication is that this was through personal choice, rather than because of the disinclination of others to give him a job. A quick glance at the records of Shadow Cabinet elections in the mid-90s gives the lie to that notion, however. Corbyn stood in 1994, finishing 49th out of 52 candidates (believe it or not, among the three MPs who finished even lower was Rhodri Morgan, the future First Minister of Wales). He stood again in 1996, finishing 26th out of 26. Extremely unimpressive results, but the fact remains that simply by standing, he was making himself available to serve as a Shadow Cabinet member under Tony Blair. You can't get much more ecumenical than that.
Saturday, August 1, 2015
Friday, July 31, 2015
Don't Mone, m'lady
I've no idea whether anyone was really daft enough to vote No last year simply because Michelle Mone didn't like the idea of independence, or because she kept making nasty comments about the SNP. But what I do know is that if she makes similar "contributions to the debate" in future, her credibility will be shot to pieces if it's true that she's about to be made a Tory peer - not a Labour or crossbench peer but a TORY peer - as a direct "reward" for her interventions during the referendum. People will also be bound to wonder whether other celebrities and public figures are only coming out against independence because they've been promised a peerage, or a bauble from the Queen.
James Forsyth speculated rather optimistically the other day that David Cameron was becoming better-informed on events in Scotland due to having to face Angus Robertson at PMQs every week, and that this would help to save the Union. It's probably true that he is slightly better-informed than he was before, but knowledge isn't much use if you have no instinctive sense of how your own decisions will impact upon public opinion and thus shape future events. The crassness of the Mone decision suggests we have very little to worry about.
James Forsyth speculated rather optimistically the other day that David Cameron was becoming better-informed on events in Scotland due to having to face Angus Robertson at PMQs every week, and that this would help to save the Union. It's probably true that he is slightly better-informed than he was before, but knowledge isn't much use if you have no instinctive sense of how your own decisions will impact upon public opinion and thus shape future events. The crassness of the Mone decision suggests we have very little to worry about.
The McColm accolade
I at last have the badge of honour of being called an "idiot" by Euan McColm, although I was a tad disappointed to fall short of "f***ing idiot". It was because I took issue with this tweet -
"those who were angry about "intrusion" after the bin lorry crash might now understand why so many questions were being asked."
First of all, the antics of Sky News and others on the day of the tragedy had nothing to do with searching for the facts - they were about emotional intrusion into the trauma of passers-by. If the suggestion is that journalists should have been permitted to intrude into the life of the driver in the days and weeks after the crash, that is entirely wrong as well - it could not possibly have assisted the official investigation, which to the evident astonishment of Mr McColm appears to have arrived at the facts without any journalistic assistance. There was no excuse whatever for the media doing anything other than giving the benefit of the doubt to a man who had just been at the centre of an unimaginable horror, and allowing him the space and privacy necessary to begin to come to terms with his role in what had happened.
* * *
From the BBC -
"Shadow Scottish Secretary Ian Murray said Ms Sturgeon had promised less than a year ago that the referendum was a once-in-a-lifetime event.
He said: "People will rightly be concerned that the first minister appears ready to break that promise.""
For my money, people will be rather more concerned that Murray is lying through his teeth about a "promise" that he knows perfectly well was never made. Sturgeon did use the phrase "once in a lifetime opportunity" to build excitement about a Yes vote - that is not even close to a promise that the SNP would never propose another referendum, let alone a promise that they would actively thwart the Scottish people if it became clear they want another referendum.
"those who were angry about "intrusion" after the bin lorry crash might now understand why so many questions were being asked."
First of all, the antics of Sky News and others on the day of the tragedy had nothing to do with searching for the facts - they were about emotional intrusion into the trauma of passers-by. If the suggestion is that journalists should have been permitted to intrude into the life of the driver in the days and weeks after the crash, that is entirely wrong as well - it could not possibly have assisted the official investigation, which to the evident astonishment of Mr McColm appears to have arrived at the facts without any journalistic assistance. There was no excuse whatever for the media doing anything other than giving the benefit of the doubt to a man who had just been at the centre of an unimaginable horror, and allowing him the space and privacy necessary to begin to come to terms with his role in what had happened.
* * *
From the BBC -
"Shadow Scottish Secretary Ian Murray said Ms Sturgeon had promised less than a year ago that the referendum was a once-in-a-lifetime event.
He said: "People will rightly be concerned that the first minister appears ready to break that promise.""
For my money, people will be rather more concerned that Murray is lying through his teeth about a "promise" that he knows perfectly well was never made. Sturgeon did use the phrase "once in a lifetime opportunity" to build excitement about a Yes vote - that is not even close to a promise that the SNP would never propose another referendum, let alone a promise that they would actively thwart the Scottish people if it became clear they want another referendum.
Without a dream in my heart, without a love of my own
I think this is possibly my favourite ever headline in the Independent -
"How to see the rare lunar event tonight"
The rare lunar event tonight is a blue moon, which is indeed a rare event, as we all know from the expression "once in a blue moon". It is, however, simply a full moon. It's called a blue moon if there has been more than one full moon in the same calendar month.
By some distance, then, the easiest way of seeing a blue moon is to look at the moon.
"How to see the rare lunar event tonight"
The rare lunar event tonight is a blue moon, which is indeed a rare event, as we all know from the expression "once in a blue moon". It is, however, simply a full moon. It's called a blue moon if there has been more than one full moon in the same calendar month.
By some distance, then, the easiest way of seeing a blue moon is to look at the moon.
Astounding Aberdeen by-elections suggest the SNP's position may have strengthened further since May
There were a couple of local by-elections for Aberdeen City Council yesterday, both caused by sitting SNP councillors becoming MPs.
Kincorth, Nigg & Cove by-election result (30th July) :
SNP 61.0% (+26.9)
Labour 19.1% (-18.8)
Conservatives 9.8% (+4.4)
Liberal Democrats 6.5% (-1.6)
Greens 3.6% (n/a)
Hilton, Woodside & Stockethill by-election result (30th July) :
SNP 55.1% (+19.6)
Labour 25.1% (-19.9)
Conservatives 11.4% (+6.0)
Greens 4.2% (+1.6)
Liberal Democrats 4.1% (+0.2)
As ever, I've done the calculations myself to be on the safe side, because it's amazing how often reports on Twitter of percentage changes and swing turn out to be wildly inaccurate (probably because of the complexities of the STV system).
The swing from Labour to SNP in the two wards averages out at just over 21%, which is a touch lower than the 25% seen at the Thorniewood by-election a few weeks ago - but that's hardly surprising, because 25% was almost off the scale. Remember that swings in local by-elections are measured from the 2012 result, in which the SNP were already 1% ahead of Labour nationally. So a 21% swing is roughly equivalent to a 32% or a 33% swing in the general election, when the SNP were starting from a much lower baseline. The actual swings in Aberdeen in May were considerably smaller than that, so it could be that the SNP are now performing even better - which would certainly be in line with what the opinion polls have been telling us recently.
We also have Scottish subsample figures from a new GB-wide ComRes poll : SNP 54%, Conservatives 19%, Labour 14%, Liberal Democrats 5%, Greens 3%, UKIP 3%, BNP 2%.
At the moment it looks as if any Corbyn bounce for Scottish Labour isn't likely to come along until and unless he is actually elected leader, and even then there are no guarantees.
Kincorth, Nigg & Cove by-election result (30th July) :
SNP 61.0% (+26.9)
Labour 19.1% (-18.8)
Conservatives 9.8% (+4.4)
Liberal Democrats 6.5% (-1.6)
Greens 3.6% (n/a)
Hilton, Woodside & Stockethill by-election result (30th July) :
SNP 55.1% (+19.6)
Labour 25.1% (-19.9)
Conservatives 11.4% (+6.0)
Greens 4.2% (+1.6)
Liberal Democrats 4.1% (+0.2)
As ever, I've done the calculations myself to be on the safe side, because it's amazing how often reports on Twitter of percentage changes and swing turn out to be wildly inaccurate (probably because of the complexities of the STV system).
The swing from Labour to SNP in the two wards averages out at just over 21%, which is a touch lower than the 25% seen at the Thorniewood by-election a few weeks ago - but that's hardly surprising, because 25% was almost off the scale. Remember that swings in local by-elections are measured from the 2012 result, in which the SNP were already 1% ahead of Labour nationally. So a 21% swing is roughly equivalent to a 32% or a 33% swing in the general election, when the SNP were starting from a much lower baseline. The actual swings in Aberdeen in May were considerably smaller than that, so it could be that the SNP are now performing even better - which would certainly be in line with what the opinion polls have been telling us recently.
We also have Scottish subsample figures from a new GB-wide ComRes poll : SNP 54%, Conservatives 19%, Labour 14%, Liberal Democrats 5%, Greens 3%, UKIP 3%, BNP 2%.
At the moment it looks as if any Corbyn bounce for Scottish Labour isn't likely to come along until and unless he is actually elected leader, and even then there are no guarantees.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Why has disgraced MP Alistair Carmichael just been appointed the Lib Dems' Shadow Home Secretary?
Labour's current Shadow Home Secretary is Yvette Cooper. Imagine it became clear that she had been guilty of serious wrongdoing, and she reacted by saying : "This incident would have required my resignation if I'd been the actual Home Secretary, but as it is I'm just going to carry on as if nothing has happened." Do you think that would have been considered tenable? Of course not. If you're not a fit and proper person to be a Cabinet minister, then you're not a fit and proper person to be a Shadow Cabinet member.
When Alistair Carmichael admitted knowingly lying over the "Frenchgate" affair, he carefully attempted to draw a distinction between his role as an MP and as an ex-Cabinet minister. He insisted that the matter did not require his resignation as an MP, but acknowledged that it would have required his resignation as a Cabinet minister had he still been in office. Conveniently, his position in the Liberal Democrat Shadow Cabinet did not arise, as it appears that no such body existed at the time.
But it exists now. Tim Farron unveiled his list of spokespeople yesterday, and Alistair Carmichael has been given the Home Affairs brief. He is, effectively, the Liberal Democrats' Shadow Home Secretary, just weeks after acknowledging that he could not possibly have carried on as Scottish Secretary. How does that work exactly? OK, we know that the Lib Dems are "the party of rehabilitation", but surely to goodness they haven't completed his rehabilitation already?
If only they were this quick when it comes to delivering federalism and electoral reform.
* * *
Meanwhile, Lib Dem Voice have continued to burnish their credentials as one of Britain's leading comedy websites, by describing Farron's new line-up as "the most diverse shadow cabinet team in the party’s history". As Sophia Pangloss pointed out on Twitter, the team actually includes more Baronesses (eight) than elected MPs (six). But don't be cynical - the Lib Dems have a really diverse range of Baronesses.
And at least they're making us feel nostalgic - this is the first time in several decades that any party's Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet has been drawn primarily from the unelected House of Lords. It's just like the good old days with Lord Palmerston.
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
What would a Corbyn win mean for the SNP?
I've just noticed an extraordinary New Statesman article from a couple of days ago, in which Stephen Bush reveals that extensive discussions with insiders have left him "more convinced than ever" that the polls are right, and that Jeremy Corbyn will become Labour leader in September. We should probably take that assessment seriously, as Bush wasn't wise after the event in respect of the general election - he warned before May 7th that the polls might be misleading, in which case the most likely outcome was a Tory-led government (albeit he thought the coalition with the Lib Dems would have to be renewed). My only quibble in this case is that the current polls aren't actually showing that Corbyn is the nailed-on winner - he has an enormous lead on first preferences, but all that matters is whether he is still ahead in the final run-off, and on that measure his lead is wafer-thin. Assuming the private poll we saw last night was legitimate, that should actually be regarded as a statistical tie between Corbyn and Yvette Cooper.
However, if Bush is correct that the polls aren't wildly inaccurate, it's clearly the case that Corbyn at least has an excellent chance. If he wins, it will turn the political world upside down, and the SNP will be affected just like everyone else. Here are a few potential implications -
1) Left-wingers who turned to the independence movement because the Britain of Attlee, Bevan and Benn seemed to be gone forever may start to have second thoughts. I know the counter-argument is that it will shortly be demonstrated that Corbyn is unelectable in the south, but in truth I wouldn't be at all surprised if he enjoys a prolonged honeymoon period in the polls. Even Michael Foot enjoyed a poll lead over Mrs Thatcher at times. If that happens, it will fuel a (possibly misplaced) sense in the Scottish left that all is not lost at UK level after all.
2) The SNP will, without changing any of their own policies, sometimes find themselves criticising Labour "from the right" for the first time in decades. Corbyn will probably propose some nationalisations that the SNP think are a step too far, and he may also be more radical on taxation. Unless Corbyn compromises with the mainstream Labour view on defence and foreign affairs, the SNP may end up defending NATO against a Labour party that wants Britain to withdraw from the alliance. Speaking personally, I would find that incredibly disorientating, although admittedly it's a less important issue than Trident, on which Labour and the SNP would suddenly be on exactly the same page.
3) We won't have to worry any more about tactical unionist voting (or at least not to any great extent) - the choice between Labour and the Tories will become more polarised than at any time since the 1980s, and supporters of each side won't be lending each other votes to stop the SNP. In some cases, Tory voters may even revert to seeing the SNP as a legitimate 'moderate' tactical option for thwarting Labour. Admittedly, though, tactical voting was never really likely to be a major factor in the Holyrood election.
4) The SNP might find it harder to retain their overall majority next year. The "good" news is that politics is very personality-driven these days, and I suspect voters will still look at the choice between Sturgeon and Dugdale and conclude that it's a no-brainer. But the Corbyn factor could chip away at the working-class vote that defected to the SNP en masse in May, allowing Labour to lose less badly than they otherwise would have done. That could make all the difference if the SNP are seeking a mandate for an independence referendum (regardless of whether the proposal is conditional on Brexit or not).
Of course, all of this assumes that the Labour parliamentary party would accept a Corbyn win, which they may well not do. If there's a major breakaway, the SNP could end up being helped rather than harmed. It would be fascinating to see which way the Labour group at Holyrood would jump if they had to choose between two rival parties.
However, if Bush is correct that the polls aren't wildly inaccurate, it's clearly the case that Corbyn at least has an excellent chance. If he wins, it will turn the political world upside down, and the SNP will be affected just like everyone else. Here are a few potential implications -
1) Left-wingers who turned to the independence movement because the Britain of Attlee, Bevan and Benn seemed to be gone forever may start to have second thoughts. I know the counter-argument is that it will shortly be demonstrated that Corbyn is unelectable in the south, but in truth I wouldn't be at all surprised if he enjoys a prolonged honeymoon period in the polls. Even Michael Foot enjoyed a poll lead over Mrs Thatcher at times. If that happens, it will fuel a (possibly misplaced) sense in the Scottish left that all is not lost at UK level after all.
2) The SNP will, without changing any of their own policies, sometimes find themselves criticising Labour "from the right" for the first time in decades. Corbyn will probably propose some nationalisations that the SNP think are a step too far, and he may also be more radical on taxation. Unless Corbyn compromises with the mainstream Labour view on defence and foreign affairs, the SNP may end up defending NATO against a Labour party that wants Britain to withdraw from the alliance. Speaking personally, I would find that incredibly disorientating, although admittedly it's a less important issue than Trident, on which Labour and the SNP would suddenly be on exactly the same page.
3) We won't have to worry any more about tactical unionist voting (or at least not to any great extent) - the choice between Labour and the Tories will become more polarised than at any time since the 1980s, and supporters of each side won't be lending each other votes to stop the SNP. In some cases, Tory voters may even revert to seeing the SNP as a legitimate 'moderate' tactical option for thwarting Labour. Admittedly, though, tactical voting was never really likely to be a major factor in the Holyrood election.
4) The SNP might find it harder to retain their overall majority next year. The "good" news is that politics is very personality-driven these days, and I suspect voters will still look at the choice between Sturgeon and Dugdale and conclude that it's a no-brainer. But the Corbyn factor could chip away at the working-class vote that defected to the SNP en masse in May, allowing Labour to lose less badly than they otherwise would have done. That could make all the difference if the SNP are seeking a mandate for an independence referendum (regardless of whether the proposal is conditional on Brexit or not).
Of course, all of this assumes that the Labour parliamentary party would accept a Corbyn win, which they may well not do. If there's a major breakaway, the SNP could end up being helped rather than harmed. It would be fascinating to see which way the Labour group at Holyrood would jump if they had to choose between two rival parties.
An alternative to Blaixit, or "Pinochet without the tanks"
Over the last couple of weeks, I've made a few mentions of Diane Abbott's dictum that it's always the right that walks out on Labour, not the left. I think that's probably correct, meaning that if there is any split in the party after the leadership election, it's much more likely to be caused by an SDP-style Blairite breakaway ("Blaixit") than by an exodus of the left. But there is one possible exception to that general rule, which could come about if anyone is foolish enough to listen to the man with a unique track record of having helped Labour lose elections in both Australia and Scotland over the last couple of years, namely the one and only John "the Gardener" McTernan.
Astonishingly, McTernan has said today that Jeremy Corbyn should be instantly removed from office if he is elected leader. I had assumed that the Blairite plan might be to give Corbyn a year or two, in the hope that his eventual demise would look like an organic process brought about by poor opinion polls and local election results. But there would be no cover story for an immediate overthrow - it would be a coup, plain and simple. Presumably the leadership election rules would then be swiftly changed to block off any possible mechanism for reversing the coup, even in the long-term - so how could the left possibly remain within the party after that? It would inevitably be seen as Labour's own internal version of the Chilean coup of 1973 - Pinochet without the guns and tanks.
You could easily imagine a "Real Labour" party being set up, led by "Labour's legitimate elected leader" and financially supported by the trade unions that backed Corbyn. It wouldn't necessarily be only a Campaign Group outfit - many soft left MPs would be so infuriated by the death of democracy within official Labour that they might just be tempted to make the move across. As McTernan is supposedly so keen on "realism" and winning at all costs, it would be interesting to know how he thinks provoking such a schism would help defeat the Tories in 2020, especially under an electoral system that severely punishes split oppositions.
If Corbyn is elected, and the parliamentary party find that they really can't live with him as leader, the most elegant way of averting a disastrous split would be some kind of negotiated "retirement" after two or three years, in return for a Corbyn proxy such as John McDonnell being appointed to a senior position in the Shadow Cabinet. That would doubtless horrify McTernan, but in the "real world", John, the idea that the left can win a leadership election fair and square, and that you can then just ignore that and pretend that it has no consequences, simply isn't tenable.
Incidentally, the German Social Democrats won the 1998 election "in spite of" the left-wing Oskar Lafontaine being both party chairman and Finance Minister-designate (ie. Shadow Chancellor). So the assumption that modern electorates will never countenance voting for a party with a strong traditional left component doesn't stack up.
* * *
McTernan also added that he thinks Corbyn's popularity is an emotional spasm, because "so many people believed Labour were going to win this election". Of course, McTernan himself didn't merely "believe" Labour would win, he knew it for a fact. At his Summerhall lecture that I went to just over a year ago, he told us that he could "guarantee" a Labour government if we voted No in the independence referendum.
We're still waiting for our money back, John.
Astonishingly, McTernan has said today that Jeremy Corbyn should be instantly removed from office if he is elected leader. I had assumed that the Blairite plan might be to give Corbyn a year or two, in the hope that his eventual demise would look like an organic process brought about by poor opinion polls and local election results. But there would be no cover story for an immediate overthrow - it would be a coup, plain and simple. Presumably the leadership election rules would then be swiftly changed to block off any possible mechanism for reversing the coup, even in the long-term - so how could the left possibly remain within the party after that? It would inevitably be seen as Labour's own internal version of the Chilean coup of 1973 - Pinochet without the guns and tanks.
You could easily imagine a "Real Labour" party being set up, led by "Labour's legitimate elected leader" and financially supported by the trade unions that backed Corbyn. It wouldn't necessarily be only a Campaign Group outfit - many soft left MPs would be so infuriated by the death of democracy within official Labour that they might just be tempted to make the move across. As McTernan is supposedly so keen on "realism" and winning at all costs, it would be interesting to know how he thinks provoking such a schism would help defeat the Tories in 2020, especially under an electoral system that severely punishes split oppositions.
If Corbyn is elected, and the parliamentary party find that they really can't live with him as leader, the most elegant way of averting a disastrous split would be some kind of negotiated "retirement" after two or three years, in return for a Corbyn proxy such as John McDonnell being appointed to a senior position in the Shadow Cabinet. That would doubtless horrify McTernan, but in the "real world", John, the idea that the left can win a leadership election fair and square, and that you can then just ignore that and pretend that it has no consequences, simply isn't tenable.
Incidentally, the German Social Democrats won the 1998 election "in spite of" the left-wing Oskar Lafontaine being both party chairman and Finance Minister-designate (ie. Shadow Chancellor). So the assumption that modern electorates will never countenance voting for a party with a strong traditional left component doesn't stack up.
* * *
McTernan also added that he thinks Corbyn's popularity is an emotional spasm, because "so many people believed Labour were going to win this election". Of course, McTernan himself didn't merely "believe" Labour would win, he knew it for a fact. At his Summerhall lecture that I went to just over a year ago, he told us that he could "guarantee" a Labour government if we voted No in the independence referendum.
We're still waiting for our money back, John.
With Burnham in danger of early elimination, Corbyn should now be considered the slight favourite
As you may have seen by now, there's yet another spate of reports in the press about a private poll for the Labour leadership contest, but this time with specific figures -
First preferences :
Jeremy Corbyn 42%
Yvette Cooper 22.6%
Andy Burnham 20%
Liz Kendall 14%
Final run-off :
Jeremy Corbyn 51%
Yvette Cooper 49%
I don't think we need to scratch our heads too much about the origin of this poll - the only candidate who benefits from it being leaked is Yvette Cooper, so it probably came from her team. It's quite amusing to see that she is also the only candidate whose share of the vote is given to one decimal place, which suggests that the person who leaked the poll was rather more interested in her than in anyone else!
A number of commentators have pointed out that it's extremely unsatisfactory that we don't know which company carried out this poll or what the sample size was, but in fact what would interest me most is the fieldwork dates. If it was wholly or mostly conducted after the publication of the YouGov poll, that would mean there's no longer any reason to suppose that Corbyn's initial support contained a significant number of people who merely wanted to "shake things up", and who are horrified by the thought of him actually winning. Assuming his huge lead on first preferences has indeed survived the fallout from YouGov, it's very hard to see why it won't survive the next few weeks as well, because clearly the people planning to vote for him do genuinely want him to win. If anything, his position may become even stronger as the result of a bandwagon effect - it's easy to imagine people being inspired to pay £3 to vote for Corbyn now that they seriously believe he can become leader, but who is going to care enough about stopping him that they will go out of their way to vote for a dismal candidate like Burnham? Anyone who does care that much is probably already a party member, and is therefore already factored into the figures.
Given that it's impossible to win the leadership without being in the final run-off, and given that Burnham and Cooper each seem to have a roughly 50/50 chance of failing to make the run-off, it strikes me that Jeremy Corbyn should really now be considered the favourite to win, albeit still an odds-against favourite. I'm surprised that the bookies are still marginally giving the edge to Burnham, but that may not be the case for much longer.
First preferences :
Jeremy Corbyn 42%
Yvette Cooper 22.6%
Andy Burnham 20%
Liz Kendall 14%
Final run-off :
Jeremy Corbyn 51%
Yvette Cooper 49%
I don't think we need to scratch our heads too much about the origin of this poll - the only candidate who benefits from it being leaked is Yvette Cooper, so it probably came from her team. It's quite amusing to see that she is also the only candidate whose share of the vote is given to one decimal place, which suggests that the person who leaked the poll was rather more interested in her than in anyone else!
A number of commentators have pointed out that it's extremely unsatisfactory that we don't know which company carried out this poll or what the sample size was, but in fact what would interest me most is the fieldwork dates. If it was wholly or mostly conducted after the publication of the YouGov poll, that would mean there's no longer any reason to suppose that Corbyn's initial support contained a significant number of people who merely wanted to "shake things up", and who are horrified by the thought of him actually winning. Assuming his huge lead on first preferences has indeed survived the fallout from YouGov, it's very hard to see why it won't survive the next few weeks as well, because clearly the people planning to vote for him do genuinely want him to win. If anything, his position may become even stronger as the result of a bandwagon effect - it's easy to imagine people being inspired to pay £3 to vote for Corbyn now that they seriously believe he can become leader, but who is going to care enough about stopping him that they will go out of their way to vote for a dismal candidate like Burnham? Anyone who does care that much is probably already a party member, and is therefore already factored into the figures.
Given that it's impossible to win the leadership without being in the final run-off, and given that Burnham and Cooper each seem to have a roughly 50/50 chance of failing to make the run-off, it strikes me that Jeremy Corbyn should really now be considered the favourite to win, albeit still an odds-against favourite. I'm surprised that the bookies are still marginally giving the edge to Burnham, but that may not be the case for much longer.
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
Cammo may not know so, but he has no veto
Just a quick note to let you know that I have a new article at the International Business Times, taking issue with David Cameron's apparent belief that he gets to decide whether the people of Scotland are allowed to choose their own constitutional future. You can read it HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)