After the SNP suspended Michelle Thomson and Natalie McGarry a couple of years ago, there were various articles in the unionist media gloating about 'the mystery of the vanishing SNP MPs'. It might be worth noting, then, that other parties seem to have recently mastered the art of shrinking their own parliamentary representation. This is the direction of travel since the general election in June...
Composition of the House of Commons:
Conservatives 314 (-2)
Labour 258 (-2)
SNP 35 (n/c)
Liberal Democrats 12 (n/c)
DUP 10 (n/c)
Sinn Féin 7 (n/c)
Independents 5 (+4)
Plaid Cymru 4 (n/c)
Greens 1 (n/c)
Conservatives 10 seats short of a majority
(The Speaker and Deputy Speakers are excluded from the above figures. Note also that Sinn Féin have not taken up their seats. Theoretically they can do so at any time, but in practice are highly unlikely to.)
Of course in one sense the Tory and Labour losses might be viewed as a mere technicality, because Jared O'Mara can still be expected to vote in line with the Labour whip and Charlie Elphicke can still be expected to vote in line with the Tory whip. But I do wonder if there may eventually prove to be a distinction between an MP who still harbours realistic hopes of being readmitted to the party fold (such as Anne Marie Morris), and an MP who is accused of something of sufficient seriousness that it becomes hard to imagine any way back. In the latter case, such a person may feel they have nothing left to lose, and the whips would have nothing left to bribe or threaten them with.
Those of you with a long memory may recall that nine Eurosceptic rebel Tory MPs had the whip withdrawn in late 1994, which technically and temporarily meant that John Major's majority was wiped out. Robin Oakley, then the BBC's Political Editor, assured viewers that this was a masterstroke by the Tory whips, because suspended MPs typically show obsessional loyalty in an effort to be readmitted as soon as possible. But the MP Rupert Allason, who'd had the whip withdrawn a year earlier, predicted that precisely the opposite would happen, and he was proved correct. The whipless MPs became an informal grouping, and with safety in numbers became emboldened to vote against the Major government even more often. They were eventually readmitted without providing any guarantees about their future conduct. That was merely embarrassing for the Tories, but it won't even be regarded as a credible option now if the reason for an MP's suspension is suspected wrongdoing of a serious nature (unless the individual is completely cleared).
Friday, November 3, 2017
Take a bow, Anne McElvoy: the competition is stiff, but you may have just said the most ridiculous thing in the history of Question Time
OK, so let's just briefly recap.
* In 2015, the Catalan people freely elected a parliament in which the absolute majority of members were pro-independence.
* In the popular vote in the 2015 election, pro-independence parties comfortably outpolled anti-independence parties by 48% to 39%.
* The elected pro-independence government held a referendum last month to definitively determine whether the population wanted independence or not.
* The pro-independence campaign won the referendum by an overwhelming margin of 92% to 8%.
* In spite of violence, intimidation and vote theft by the Spanish authorities, 38.5% of the entire registered electorate successfully cast a vote in favour of independence, meaning that even had there been a very high overall turnout of as much as 76%, a victory for the pro-independence campaign would have been statistically certain.
* Braving a very real threat to their own personal liberty, government ministers acted to respect the will of the electorate by declaring an independent republic.
* An opinion poll published this week shows that there continues to be a majority in favour of independence (roughly 53% to 47%).
* Two very recent voting intention polls suggest that the pro-independence parties are on course to retain their overall majority in parliament in the December elections, and to win the popular vote once again.
Presumably aware of most or all of the above, Anne McElvoy of The Economist somehow felt able to indulge in the following musings on the BBC's Question Time tonight: "The facts are that there is not an overall appetite in Catalonia for independence, and sometimes the debate is conducted as if there were. And sometimes some of the framing of news reporting seems to suggest that there is. AND THERE IS NOT. If you want a LEGITIMATE pro-independence movement, then go out there, campaign for it, and get people on your side. The push for independence is, I think, over for the moment."
There comes a point where it's actually quite difficult to know how to argue with stupidity like that. What's truly inexplicable is that the host David Dimbleby didn't step in to correct (or at least challenge) such an obvious factual inaccuracy, and instead simply allowed viewers to be grossly misled.
* * *
I touch on the subject of Catalonia in my article for this month's iScot magazine, which is now available. A preview of the article has been posted HERE, and you can purchase a digital copy of the magazine HERE.
* In 2015, the Catalan people freely elected a parliament in which the absolute majority of members were pro-independence.
* In the popular vote in the 2015 election, pro-independence parties comfortably outpolled anti-independence parties by 48% to 39%.
* The elected pro-independence government held a referendum last month to definitively determine whether the population wanted independence or not.
* The pro-independence campaign won the referendum by an overwhelming margin of 92% to 8%.
* In spite of violence, intimidation and vote theft by the Spanish authorities, 38.5% of the entire registered electorate successfully cast a vote in favour of independence, meaning that even had there been a very high overall turnout of as much as 76%, a victory for the pro-independence campaign would have been statistically certain.
* Braving a very real threat to their own personal liberty, government ministers acted to respect the will of the electorate by declaring an independent republic.
* An opinion poll published this week shows that there continues to be a majority in favour of independence (roughly 53% to 47%).
* Two very recent voting intention polls suggest that the pro-independence parties are on course to retain their overall majority in parliament in the December elections, and to win the popular vote once again.
Presumably aware of most or all of the above, Anne McElvoy of The Economist somehow felt able to indulge in the following musings on the BBC's Question Time tonight: "The facts are that there is not an overall appetite in Catalonia for independence, and sometimes the debate is conducted as if there were. And sometimes some of the framing of news reporting seems to suggest that there is. AND THERE IS NOT. If you want a LEGITIMATE pro-independence movement, then go out there, campaign for it, and get people on your side. The push for independence is, I think, over for the moment."
There comes a point where it's actually quite difficult to know how to argue with stupidity like that. What's truly inexplicable is that the host David Dimbleby didn't step in to correct (or at least challenge) such an obvious factual inaccuracy, and instead simply allowed viewers to be grossly misled.
* * *
I touch on the subject of Catalonia in my article for this month's iScot magazine, which is now available. A preview of the article has been posted HERE, and you can purchase a digital copy of the magazine HERE.
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Opinion poll confirms what we already knew: Catalonia wants to be an independent state
I don't often wade through polling datasets in the Catalan language for this blog, but it may be worth doing it in this particular case. As I've noted a couple of times over the last few weeks, the result of the Catalan referendum makes it phenomenally improbable that the anti-independence side would have won if they hadn't boycotted the vote. You'd have to believe in an ultra-high turnout and that practically all of the extra voters would have voted No - which stretches credibility beyond breaking-point, given that we know large numbers of Yes supporters were prevented from voting by the police. The only other possibility to cling to is that there was widespread falsification of results - essentially the mirror image of the wild conspiracy theories about the Scottish indyref result that unionists here love to scoff at. Judging from the reports of observers, there in fact seems to be compelling evidence that the vote was extremely well and fairly conducted under the circumstances. And yet, in spite of the compelling mandate for independence staring them in the face, the BBC website has taken to innocently finishing articles about Catalonia with a variant on the following: "Catalans are split on independence. An opinion poll earlier this year showed 41% in favour, 49% against." The pretty obvious subtext being that outdated opinion polls are more authoritative than actual referendum results.
Even if you believe that the BBC's favourite poll was bang-on accurate at the moment it was conducted, is it really so implausible that public opinion has changed since then, allowing us to reconcile the poll result with the referendum result? Of course it's not. Scottish public opinion proved extremely volatile over the final few weeks of indyref campaigning, and we didn't have the provocation of state authorities telling us it was illegal to vote and attacking us with truncheons and rubber bullets if we attempted to reach a polling station. The new Catalan poll today confirms that there has been a significant swing in favour of independence since the pre-referendum period, sufficient to give Yes a majority.
I, més concretament, vol que Catalunya esdevingui un Estat independent? (And, more specifically, do you want Catalonia to become an independent State?)
Yes 48.7% (+7.6)
No 43.6% (-5.8)
The fieldwork dates were 16th-29th October, and with Don't Knows excluded the results are roughly: Yes 53%, No 47%. Percentage changes are from the same polling organisation's figures in June.
The 'less specific' question asked by the poll is a multi-option question on various constitutional options - a bit like Scottish polls that chuck in a 'Devo Max' option. Outright independence is the most popular single option with 40.2% support. It's true that if you combine support for all of the options that involve Catalonia remaining within the Spanish state, you reach an overall majority - but, crucially, one of those options is Catalonia becoming a state in its own right within a federal Spain, which is clearly not on offer in the real world. That explains why there is a pro-independence majority on the binary Yes/No question.
Even if you believe that the BBC's favourite poll was bang-on accurate at the moment it was conducted, is it really so implausible that public opinion has changed since then, allowing us to reconcile the poll result with the referendum result? Of course it's not. Scottish public opinion proved extremely volatile over the final few weeks of indyref campaigning, and we didn't have the provocation of state authorities telling us it was illegal to vote and attacking us with truncheons and rubber bullets if we attempted to reach a polling station. The new Catalan poll today confirms that there has been a significant swing in favour of independence since the pre-referendum period, sufficient to give Yes a majority.
I, més concretament, vol que Catalunya esdevingui un Estat independent? (And, more specifically, do you want Catalonia to become an independent State?)
Yes 48.7% (+7.6)
No 43.6% (-5.8)
The fieldwork dates were 16th-29th October, and with Don't Knows excluded the results are roughly: Yes 53%, No 47%. Percentage changes are from the same polling organisation's figures in June.
The 'less specific' question asked by the poll is a multi-option question on various constitutional options - a bit like Scottish polls that chuck in a 'Devo Max' option. Outright independence is the most popular single option with 40.2% support. It's true that if you combine support for all of the options that involve Catalonia remaining within the Spanish state, you reach an overall majority - but, crucially, one of those options is Catalonia becoming a state in its own right within a federal Spain, which is clearly not on offer in the real world. That explains why there is a pro-independence majority on the binary Yes/No question.
Monday, October 30, 2017
Spanish democracy : doubleplusgood
I wanted to vote but Big Brother told me it was illegal.
I went to the polling station, and Big Brother's police smashed me in the face with a truncheon.
They did it to save democracy and protect my human rights.
I checked with Big Brother's European allies to make sure he hadn't malfunctioned in some way, but they said "no, this is all perfectly normal".
The votes were counted and the result was announced, but Big Brother explained there hadn't been an election at all. It had just been my imagination.
Some people attempted to implement the result of the imaginary election, but Big Brother's judges tried to arrest them and they had to flee to another country.
Then Big Brother decided to hold an election of his own. It would be much better than the imaginary election because it wouldn't be imaginary, and because everyone would be able to take part.
I tried to vote for my favourite candidates in Big Brother's election, but found I couldn't because they were in jail for organising the imaginary election.
So I tried to vote for my second favourite candidates, but found I couldn't because Big Brother had banned their party for campaigning in the imaginary election.
I did manage to vote for my third favourite candidates. And they won. Hurrah!
But then Big Brother annulled the election results because it was undemocratic for the winners to win.
I went on a demonstration because I didn't think this was fair. Big Brother's police smashed me in the face with a truncheon again and I suddenly remembered it was all totally fair.
Freedom is Slavery.
Dictatorship is Democracy.
I love Big Brother.
Saturday, October 28, 2017
Listen to the real FM, Kenny
As you may already have seen, Kenny "Devo or Death" Farquharson fell hook, line and sinker for a tweet from a parody Nicola Sturgeon account stating that "Scotland does not recognise the Republic of Catalunya" and that "the Spanish constitution must be respected". Emboldened by his belief that the real Sturgeon had made such a wildly implausible intervention, he rather amusingly scolded me for not falling into line with my party leader's edict. "Listen to the FM!" he said, sternly.
As Kenny's appeal to authority has blown something of a puncture, I'll just take this opportunity to amplify my original point. 17,410,742 people voted Leave in the EU referendum last year, out of a total registered electorate of 46,500,001. That means just 37.4% of the electorate voted Leave - and yet, on the whole, the UK's political and journalistic establishment don't seem to have any problem with the idea that Britain must withdraw from the European Union on the basis of a mandate that would have fallen short of the notorious 40% rule in 1979.
In the Catalan independence referendum, 2,044,038 people voted in favour of independence, out of a total registered electorate of 5,313,564. That means 38.5% of the electorate voted for independence - a slightly higher percentage than Leave achieved. It would of course have been even higher if Spanish police hadn't stolen votes, closed polling stations, and used violence to prevent people from voting.
In fairness to Kenny, I saw the fake Sturgeon tweet when I did a Google search last night, and although I was dismayed by it, for just a split-second I thought it might be real. It was the "to be clear" that did it - that sounds like Sturgeonesque language. But when I thought about it I quickly became suspicious and decided to check, because I realised that an explicit rejection of the mandate for independence would have directly contradicted what she has been saying for weeks. It tells us quite a bit about Kenny's fundamental misreading of the SNP that he didn't become suspicious about a tweet like that, even after reflection. In reality, given the strength of feeling about Catalonia, there were only really two options open to the Scottish Government - either offer a symbolic "recognition" of Catalan independence (even though a non-sovereign country like Scotland has no power to recognise a state), or just opt out of the problem by neither recognising nor disputing the independence declaration. They've gone for the latter option - I'm not sure that will be enough to satisfy most SNP members, but I can certainly understand why they've done it.
(Click screenshots to enlarge.)
In the Catalan independence referendum, 2,044,038 people voted in favour of independence, out of a total registered electorate of 5,313,564. That means 38.5% of the electorate voted for independence - a slightly higher percentage than Leave achieved. It would of course have been even higher if Spanish police hadn't stolen votes, closed polling stations, and used violence to prevent people from voting.
In fairness to Kenny, I saw the fake Sturgeon tweet when I did a Google search last night, and although I was dismayed by it, for just a split-second I thought it might be real. It was the "to be clear" that did it - that sounds like Sturgeonesque language. But when I thought about it I quickly became suspicious and decided to check, because I realised that an explicit rejection of the mandate for independence would have directly contradicted what she has been saying for weeks. It tells us quite a bit about Kenny's fundamental misreading of the SNP that he didn't become suspicious about a tweet like that, even after reflection. In reality, given the strength of feeling about Catalonia, there were only really two options open to the Scottish Government - either offer a symbolic "recognition" of Catalan independence (even though a non-sovereign country like Scotland has no power to recognise a state), or just opt out of the problem by neither recognising nor disputing the independence declaration. They've gone for the latter option - I'm not sure that will be enough to satisfy most SNP members, but I can certainly understand why they've done it.
Barcelona, like a jewel in the sun
Depressingly (in one sense), I'm just about old enough to clearly remember Slovenia's unilateral declaration of independence from Yugoslavia in 1991. I recall the TV reports dripping with scepticism about the prospect of the new "state" receiving recognition from the international community, and positive derision about its ambitions for membership of the European Community (as the EU was then called). And yet in the blink of an eye, Slovenia had attracted widespread recognition, and within just thirteen years it was a full member of the EU. None of this is to say that history is bound to repeat itself in Catalonia, but it's a useful reminder that it pays dividends to be sceptical about journalistic scepticism. These situations often have a momentum all of their own.
I suspect that if the events of the last 24 hours do eventually lead to authentic independence, Catalonia may have a more tortuous journey to follow than Slovenia did. A hard notion though it is to countenance amid the euphoria of the moment, there may yet have to be a strategic and temporary renunciation of the independence declaration if Spain is prepared to offer a binding independence referendum in return. Why would the comically intransigent Spanish political establishment offer such a thing in a million years? Most likely because there is a reasonable chance that Catalonia will prove to be ungovernable under Madrid's puppet regime, if enough public servants switch their allegiance to the new republic and if civil disobedience is widespread. We don't know yet if that will prove to be the case, but we're about to find out.
* * *
Since my last update, four more Britain-wide voting intention polls have been published, and yet again, the Scottish subsamples from all of them put the SNP in the lead.
Survation: SNP 37%, Labour 28%, Conservatives 16%, Liberal Democrats 13%, UKIP 3%, Greens 2%
YouGov (a): SNP 42%, Labour 24%, Conservatives 22%, UKIP 6%, Liberal Democrats 5%
ICM: SNP 39%, Conservatives 27%, Labour 24%, Greens 6%, Liberal Democrats 4%
YouGov (b): SNP 36%, Labour 30%, Conservatives 25%, Liberal Democrats 5%, Greens 2%, BNP 1%
That means an extraordinary seventeen subsamples in a row have now put the SNP in first place - quite a contrast with the pattern seen between election day and the end of August, when a substantial minority of subsamples were putting Labour ahead. It does look very much like the SNP's lead dropped significantly during the summer before recovering. That trend will never be part of the 'official record', though, because the first full-scale Scottish poll after the election wasn't conducted until early September, which if the subsamples are to be believed is roughly the point at which the political weather changed back in the SNP's favour.
I suspect that if the events of the last 24 hours do eventually lead to authentic independence, Catalonia may have a more tortuous journey to follow than Slovenia did. A hard notion though it is to countenance amid the euphoria of the moment, there may yet have to be a strategic and temporary renunciation of the independence declaration if Spain is prepared to offer a binding independence referendum in return. Why would the comically intransigent Spanish political establishment offer such a thing in a million years? Most likely because there is a reasonable chance that Catalonia will prove to be ungovernable under Madrid's puppet regime, if enough public servants switch their allegiance to the new republic and if civil disobedience is widespread. We don't know yet if that will prove to be the case, but we're about to find out.
* * *
Since my last update, four more Britain-wide voting intention polls have been published, and yet again, the Scottish subsamples from all of them put the SNP in the lead.
Survation: SNP 37%, Labour 28%, Conservatives 16%, Liberal Democrats 13%, UKIP 3%, Greens 2%
YouGov (a): SNP 42%, Labour 24%, Conservatives 22%, UKIP 6%, Liberal Democrats 5%
ICM: SNP 39%, Conservatives 27%, Labour 24%, Greens 6%, Liberal Democrats 4%
YouGov (b): SNP 36%, Labour 30%, Conservatives 25%, Liberal Democrats 5%, Greens 2%, BNP 1%
That means an extraordinary seventeen subsamples in a row have now put the SNP in first place - quite a contrast with the pattern seen between election day and the end of August, when a substantial minority of subsamples were putting Labour ahead. It does look very much like the SNP's lead dropped significantly during the summer before recovering. That trend will never be part of the 'official record', though, because the first full-scale Scottish poll after the election wasn't conducted until early September, which if the subsamples are to be believed is roughly the point at which the political weather changed back in the SNP's favour.
Friday, October 27, 2017
Now is a very odd time to be claiming that the division of powers between the UK and Scotland is "clear-cut"
There's an article on the BBC website that attempts to explain the system of autonomy in Catalonia - ie. the one that Madrid is today trying to sweep away and replace with a puppet regime. Unfortunately, however, the article makes a comparison with devolution in Scotland that is astonishingly misconceived in the light of recent events...
"The division of powers between the central government in Madrid and the regional government in Barcelona is not as clear cut as it is in some other countries with devolved authorities such as Germany or the UK. In the UK, for example, the government in Westminster cannot interfere in Scottish education policy because education is fully devolved."
Oh really? Agriculture and fisheries are "fully devolved" in Scotland, and yet the UK government are doing a remarkably convincing impersonation of a group of people who think and know that they have the legal right to interfere with Scottish agriculture and fisheries to their heart's content under the cover of a post-Brexit power grab. The reason? First of all, the Scotland Act stresses that none of its provisions prevent the UK parliament from "legislating for Scotland". The only constraint on Westminster legislating on devolved matters is the informal Sewel Convention, which was supposed to have been put on a statutory basis as part of the implementation of "The Vow". However, earlier this year the UK government successfully argued at the Supreme Court that the whole thing was a con-trick and that Sewel remains legally unenforceable.
Secondly, the Scotland Act specifies that 'the constitution' is reserved to Westminster - an extremely broad category that naturally includes the Scotland Act itself. So Westminster can simply rip up or modify the devolved settlement at its whim - which is exactly what it is currently attempting to do by means of the Great Repeal Bill. The only conceivable constraint on that process is Sewel, which is legally worthless (see above).
As I've conceded before, the UK does have a good story to tell in the sense that it's extremely unlikely that a violent Spanish-style crackdown would ever be launched against an exercise in Scottish self-determination. But the idea that Scotland has some sort of clear-cut legal protection that Catalonia lacks is an absolute fairy-tale.
Monday, October 23, 2017
Why Ruth Davidson will almost certainly NOT be the next Prime Minister
You may have seen over the weekend that John Rentoul manned up and made a stout-hearted attempt to resuscitate the decomposing corpse of the 'Ruth Davidson for PM' campaign, with an article entitled 'I'm convinced Ruth Davidson could be the next Prime Minister'. Now, obviously most people reading this blog will share my view that Ruth is All Tank And No Ammunition, and will be aware that under her leadership the Scottish Tories have slipped back to a dismal third place in the majority of recent polls. However, let's humour Rentoul just for a moment and pretend that the idea of Ruth as a world leader isn't quite as batty as it actually is. What's missing from the article is an explanation of how it's even practically feasible for her to stand in a Conservative leadership election.
To stand as a leadership candidate, you need to be a Westminster MP. Ruth is not a Westminster MP. It is of course theoretically possible to become an MP without a general election taking place by engineering a by-election, but that takes time. Vacancies for the Tory leadership generally occur rather suddenly (I can't think of even a single exception to that rule in my lifetime), so we're effectively being asked to believe that other potential candidates and the entire Hard Brexit wing of the Tory parliamentary party would be absolutely fine with the start of the contest being delayed for several weeks just so that the darling of Remainers can attempt to stand. The only alternative would be for her to preempt the issue by persuading a Westminster chum to stand down before a leadership vacancy arises, but that would be seen as an obvious attempt to prepare the ground for a leadership challenge, and thus as a gross act of disloyalty - not just against Theresa May, but against the whole Tory party. Any needless by-election can backfire, and the Tories know they can't risk losing even a single seat given the current state of the parliamentary arithmetic.
It just ain't going to happen. She may well want it to happen, but by now she'll have worked out the permutations in her head and realised a plausible route to Downing Street just isn't there in anything like the foreseeable future.
* * *
What do you call a man who has already completely and utterly lost the plot and then doubles down? If I didn't know the guy so well, I'd be rubbing my eyes in disbelief right now. Round 3 in less than a week from Stormfront Lite's Mike Smithson -
"Remember the ONLY way an election can be triggered before 2022 is by going through the processes set down in the Fixed-Term Parliament Act. This requires two thirds of all 650 MPs to back one, as last April, or else the government losing two votes of no confidence within a specific time table. In the current context the latter requires both the DUP and the SNP to join with LAB, PC and the LD MPs. The DUP has been bought off for its 10 votes and LAB should be under no illusions about the SNP’s 35 MPs. Nicola’s party got smashed on June 8th and isn’t going to put its remaining 35 MPs at risk by doing anything that would facilitate an early election."
I've already explained five hundred and eighty-three billion times why Smithson's repeated claim that the SNP would prevent an early election taking place is the polar opposite of the truth, so let's just take a moment to marvel at his startling new assertion that the SNP "got smashed on June 8th". This, ladies and gentlemen, is the election result he is referring to...
SNP: 35 seats
Conservatives: 13 seats
Labour: 7 seats
Liberal Democrats: 4 seats
SNP: 35 seats
All other parties combined: 24 seats
SNP: 59.3% of seats
All other parties combined: 40.7% of seats
That's what the SNP "getting smashed" looks like, apparently. I hope for the sake of the unionist parties that the SNP never actually win an election.
By the way, on a point of pedantry it's not even true that "the ONLY way" an early election can be triggered is via the processes of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. The other way of doing it is to repeal that Act.
To stand as a leadership candidate, you need to be a Westminster MP. Ruth is not a Westminster MP. It is of course theoretically possible to become an MP without a general election taking place by engineering a by-election, but that takes time. Vacancies for the Tory leadership generally occur rather suddenly (I can't think of even a single exception to that rule in my lifetime), so we're effectively being asked to believe that other potential candidates and the entire Hard Brexit wing of the Tory parliamentary party would be absolutely fine with the start of the contest being delayed for several weeks just so that the darling of Remainers can attempt to stand. The only alternative would be for her to preempt the issue by persuading a Westminster chum to stand down before a leadership vacancy arises, but that would be seen as an obvious attempt to prepare the ground for a leadership challenge, and thus as a gross act of disloyalty - not just against Theresa May, but against the whole Tory party. Any needless by-election can backfire, and the Tories know they can't risk losing even a single seat given the current state of the parliamentary arithmetic.
It just ain't going to happen. She may well want it to happen, but by now she'll have worked out the permutations in her head and realised a plausible route to Downing Street just isn't there in anything like the foreseeable future.
* * *
What do you call a man who has already completely and utterly lost the plot and then doubles down? If I didn't know the guy so well, I'd be rubbing my eyes in disbelief right now. Round 3 in less than a week from Stormfront Lite's Mike Smithson -
"Remember the ONLY way an election can be triggered before 2022 is by going through the processes set down in the Fixed-Term Parliament Act. This requires two thirds of all 650 MPs to back one, as last April, or else the government losing two votes of no confidence within a specific time table. In the current context the latter requires both the DUP and the SNP to join with LAB, PC and the LD MPs. The DUP has been bought off for its 10 votes and LAB should be under no illusions about the SNP’s 35 MPs. Nicola’s party got smashed on June 8th and isn’t going to put its remaining 35 MPs at risk by doing anything that would facilitate an early election."
I've already explained five hundred and eighty-three billion times why Smithson's repeated claim that the SNP would prevent an early election taking place is the polar opposite of the truth, so let's just take a moment to marvel at his startling new assertion that the SNP "got smashed on June 8th". This, ladies and gentlemen, is the election result he is referring to...
SNP: 35 seats
Conservatives: 13 seats
Labour: 7 seats
Liberal Democrats: 4 seats
SNP: 35 seats
All other parties combined: 24 seats
SNP: 59.3% of seats
All other parties combined: 40.7% of seats
That's what the SNP "getting smashed" looks like, apparently. I hope for the sake of the unionist parties that the SNP never actually win an election.
By the way, on a point of pedantry it's not even true that "the ONLY way" an early election can be triggered is via the processes of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. The other way of doing it is to repeal that Act.
Thursday, October 19, 2017
It's getting close to unspoofable now
Another day, another ill-judged analysis of Scottish politics from Stormfront Lite's Bedfordshire-based editor Mike Smithson, known fondly to thousands of East Dunbartonshire residents as an 'impartial' letter-writing 'election expert' (in spite of being a long-standing Liberal Democrat member, a former Liberal Democrat county councillor, and a former Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate). When he mysteriously claimed yesterday that the SNP's electoral position was 'precarious', I wondered aloud if he was even aware of the three full-scale polls of Scottish voting intentions for Westminster that have been conducted since the election in June, and which all show that the SNP's support has gone back up. He's unwittingly answered my question today -
"One of the problems we have with ongoing analysis of this is that there is very little regular Scotland only polling. Trying to assess what’s happening north of the border from the Scottish sub-set in national polls is fraught with danger."
Ooooh yes, subsamples are just riddled with peril for the unsuspecting impartial Liberal Democrat expert. Just as well, then, that we've had three full-scale Scottish polls in the last few weeks, including one very recently. Quite plainly he's oblivious to that fact.
A word of advice, Mike. You don't even need to read Scot Goes Pop - there's a regularly updated list of Scottish polls on Wikipedia. Might be an idea to take five seconds to check it before you next pontificate about the SNP's 'precarious' electoral position.
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
Europe is being slow to realise that it needs Spain to lose
Just a quick note to let you know that I have a new article at the TalkRadio website, about what Nicola Sturgeon is likely to say and do in response to the Spanish crackdown on democracy. You can read it HERE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)