danieldwilliam: (Default)
I think we have seen the five worst Prime Ministers in the history of Britain and in descending order of worstness. Their greatest common sin was to consistently put duty to their Party or to their own venality ahead of their duty at Prime Minister but each one has a fault of their own.

David Cameron, Britain's 5th worst Prime Minister. A man whose arrogance was only exceeded by the gap between ability and his own perception of his ability.

By choosing the most simplistic form of plebiscite as a way to save the Tory Party from itself he put in to hazard 50 years of Britain's foreign and economic policy. Too arrogant and too stupid to stop for a day and think, "what if this goes wrong? what could I do today to make those risks less?"

What he learned from the AV referendum was that he would easily win referendums. What he should have learned from the AV referendum was that, if you don't carefully structure the referendum process the other side can and will just lie.

Also, he appointed George Osborne Chancellor, and he, more than anyone else caused this mess.

Teresa May, Britain's 4th worst Prime Minister. A genuine patriot and someone keenly sensible of the sacredness of the duties she was heir to somehow failed to realise that she was in charge of what happened next and could make some different decisions. Mistaking, as many Tories do, the unity of the Conservative Party for the unity of the country. After she realised that she was in charge, at each point chose to do the thing that would damage her party least. She could have asked, "well this is a mess, how can we as a country work out what to do next?" She chose not to but instead to push on as quickly as she could so that the Tories would not fall too much to fighting each other over the impossibility of dealing with the Brexit referendum result without having to say that some Tories were pig ignorant nut jobs too loudly.

Boris Johnson, Britain's 3rd worst Prime Minister. Having ridden Teresa May over the Brexit jumps with cries of "faster, faster" he demonstrated an utter inability to find any meaningful way to put in to practise the slogans and smoke rings he had blown in to the air to get himself elected. Having contributed to the destruction of Britain's foreign policy in order to advance his career by "saving" the Tory Party from itself he then purged the Tory Party of two thirds of the broad church that had made the Tory Party the natural party of government in England for 200 years leaving it a hollow shell bereft of ideas, talent, ideology or any sense of anything greater than itself. And then, like the scorpion on the frog he could not help himself but fail to follow the rules he had set for the rest of the country. He appears not to understand that people love their grandparents, as much if not more than he loves himself, and will not lightly abandon them to die a lonely, undignified death or lightly forgive someone who did abandon them.

For his own convenience he hollowed out three of the great institutions of our country and then lost his job supporting a sex pest in Parliament.

Johnson's great (espoused) hero, when sacked from Government in 1916 over the Gallipoli landings spent two years as a battalion commander on the Western Front. Johnson appears never to have asked himself "why would a man who didn't have to do that, go and do that?"

Johnson should be made to look at a picture of himself taken during his address to the nation on the eve of the Covid lockdowns when you can see flickering in his expression the realisation that people, large numbers of people, were going to die because of decisions he had already bungled and that he was just realising, to a rough order of magnitude, how out of his depth he was. It won't do him any good but then nothing could. His soul is a sodden mess of his own incontinence.

Liz Truss, Britain's second worst Prime Minister, as well as the shortest serving. Possibly actually insane. That alone is enough to put her on this list.

Took all the examples of the four Prime Minister's prior to her; that a Conservative Prime Minister simply stating something made it the truth, that there were no political consequences from poor government if you lied well enough, that the Tory Party and the country were linked in some sort of spiritual union expressed through the voice of the leader and that believing in your own ability was the same as actually being able and things would probably turn as you hoped because you were a good sort really. Then she applied them to the profoundly left-wing institution of the UK's's banking system with the sort of gusto that would make a sledge-hammer wielding David Hasselhoff attacking the Berlin Wall look on in admiration. By accident she then applied that sledge-hammer to about 10% of the households in the UK via the magic of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee and seemed surprised, perhaps even disappointed, that people disliked this.

If Britain has stood for anything since 1745 it is stability, prudent financial management and a sort of Whiggish hope for the future. Radical nutjobs destroying banking is the sort of thing British Communists disapprove of let alone the Tory party members who voted for Liz Truss.

Then we come to Rishi Sunak, Britain's worst Prime Minister ever. Having watched the last 8 years unfold from inside government his response to the profound political, economic, social and financial mess that the country finds itself in was to do, nothing. To sit in his office, in Office in his ill-fitting suit jacket doing nothing. To take no action but to blame some poor unfortunates in ill-fitting life jackets. Not just to say this as a lie or a distraction but to appear to genuinely think this was sufficient to discharge the duties of his office.

That is why, despite the strong competition from his predecessors, I believe he is the worst Prime Minister Britain has ever had. To look at the country as it is and decide to do nothing about it.


We've had someone who didn't stop to think, followed by someone who didn't stop, followed by someone who didn't think of anyone but themselves, followed by someone who appeared not to be able to manage a single coherent thought and finally followed by someone who thinks this is okay. That it's all okay.

Come tomorrow, come the reckoning.
danieldwilliam: (Default)
I think the election result will be at the bad end of predictions for the Conservative Party and towards the good end of predictions for the Labour Party. My view has shifted on this in the last month or so and especially since the English local elections.
My seat prediction for the Tories is closer to 150 seats than 200 seats.
Reasons I think this.
1) The polling has shown a very consistent and high Labour lead for a long time. This is backed up by government approval and personal approval ratings for Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer.
2) There’s some evidence that tactical anti-Tory voting will be widespread and effective.
3) Reform supports appears to have held up and turned in to votes in an actual election. This was one of the bigger uncertainties for me. I’d expected many Reform supporters to end up voting Conservative but they appear not to have done at the local elections. I think, from that, fewer Reform supporters will vote Tory in the General Election than I was expecting. The Reform vote seems pretty widely and evenly distributed.
4) The large number of Tory MPs standing down. This is both a predictor and a cause of lost seats. As a predictor; Tory MPs are very likely to know what the situation is actually like. If they are leaving before they lose their seat that indicates that they know things are not going well. As a cause; there is an incumbency advantage but that is lost if the sitting MP, especially high profile ones, stand down.
5) The mood of the country (as far as I can tell from the limited view I have of it) seems to be resolutely that it is time for the Tories to be voted out and the harder and more thoroughly they are voted out the better. The people seem consistent about this.
6) The SNP seems to be struggling here in Scotland which means that the Labour Party and the Lib Dems will pick up a number of seats here that they perhaps might not have done with a more popular SNP.
7) The Labour vote seems to be pretty efficiently distributed at the moment. They look set to win many marginal seats with comfortable but not overwhelming majorities and where they are losing votes to the left that seems to be in seats in large urban centres where the Labour Party would otherwise have super-majorities.
So I think the Labour vote will broadly hold up, tactical voting will mean the Lib Dems will pick up more of the Tory-Lib-Dem marginals, Reform will split the Tory vote pretty consistently.
I think the Tories will be lucky to walk away from this election with 150 seats.
danieldwilliam: (Default)
I have some theories about what Boris Johnson might be up to - they are presented below for your delictation and entertainment.

Theory One; Cha-Ching! he is off to make his fortune. He knows he’s going to be suspended form Parliament and that a recall petition, a by-election and a by-election lose are likely so he’s cashing in his chips. He’s worth more to himself if he is a credible (for very, very low levels of credible) prospect as Conservative Party Leader. That potential is severely diminished if he loses a by-election after being suspended. So theory one, he’s off to cash in on being the King Over the Water. There will be a book, there will a series of lectures. Then another book. Perhaps a news paper column. Every six months or so he’ll let his name be linked with a by-election or safe Tory seat, just to keep his name in circulation.

Theory Two; Return of the Spaff, he’s planning a come back as Tory Leader after the next election. The next election is going to be a holy reckoning for the Conservative Party and the further away from that he is the better his prospects of being re-elected Tory leader to replace Sunak (or whomever replaces Sunak in 2024). So out of Parliament now. Make a bit of cash. Safe seat for the 2024 election. Elected leader in 2025. Down in history as, well something.

Theory Three; the Mid Bedfordshire Gambit. By leaving Parliament now he avoids losing a by-election in the marginal Uxbridge and South Ruislip seat and transfers to Mid Bedfordshire, which is rock solid Tory. Wins that, returns to Parliament “vindicated” by the voters and is now unimpeachable, perhaps literally. With his popularity proven he is free to run against Sunak for leader in 2024, or just make some cash.

Theory Four; Reclaim and Reform, he’s going to found his own party or team up with former husband of Billie Piper, Lawrence Fox to re-enter Parliament in Mid Bedfordshire and terrify the Conservative Party from the right flank. Endless appearances on Question Time. Appearing in support at any other by-elections in 2023 and 2024.

Theory Five; A Quiet Retirement, he knows the gig is up and he’s leaving now, with what little remains of his dignity and self-respect. The Prime Ministerial pension is probably enough to keep body and soul together, watch a bit of cricket, make a few wise and well-observed comments from the political sidelines, make things up to his wife for his infamous infidelity and hope Norma forgives him – or whatever it is that Boris Johnson does instead of being John Major.

The list above is presented in descending order of probability.
danieldwilliam: (Default)
I'm inclined to take Sturgeon's resignation announcement at face value.

I find being on the senior management team of a small tech firm tiring, on occasions exhausting verging on debilitating. So I entirely believe her when she says that running Scotland is hard work and that she recognises that she's running out of spoons and needs to stop soon-ish.

I also take her point that if she's not able to commit to being FM and SNP leader for the next 2-3 years then it is probably the right time for her to step down before the SNP make a very, very big decision about the mechanism and timing of their Plan B to a Westminster sanctioned referendum. I think she's right that she would have large influence over that choice. The FM and SNP leader will have to be the front-rank salesperson of that plan to the SNP membership, the wider independence movement and the Scottish people. If she can't commit to being around to do that job then probably right for her to step down before she exercises the Chairs' vote in the SNP internal debate on Plan B. The new person can be chosen with the Plan B approach in mind - or vice versa. Nice and clean.

So I don't think her resignation is particularly tied to the GRR issue or the problems with party financing.

I thought the GRR issue might cause her some difficulty over the next 6-12 months. I never thought the mechanism of that difficulty would be the type to trigger a sudden resignation. (1) I don't think some people in grey suits have taken her aside and told her that the game is up.

Unless she has personally defrauded the SNP independence fighting fund of half a million quid - which seems very unlikely. We've had instances of independence fighting funds being stolen by SNP MSP's and it's not brought down the government. So not that (2).

Or any of the other hot button issues that are going on.

So, probably just the tiredness then.

She'll be a big loss to the country. Or the countries. She's lead Scotland very ably and with great humanity through some difficult times. She's also served as a role model of how the UK could do politics if it weren't run by e.g Johnson and Corbyn and those like them.

She's been a very, very successful politician. Perhaps the most successful in the UK in the last few decades. Perhaps the best politician in the UK.



(1) What I thought likely to happen was that the fall out of the GRR Bill would cause friction and confussion thusly - Scottish Government would appeal the Secretary of State for Scotland's veto of the GRR Bill and lose. Quite rightly lose, the law on S35 seems much, much clearer than the law on S30 or what exactly constitutes a reserved power. The SNP would have to decide whether to re-introduce the Bill or lobby for action at a UK level or leave it alone. Noting that, per both Ashcroft and Kelly polling what the GRR actually does is probably not supported by voters at large and what the GRR is truthinessly claimed to do is not at all supported by voters and they certainly don't think the issue is important to them. Voters unlikely t be delighted with more on this issue. The Scottish Green Party would favour more action and activism on this than the SNP. This would lead to tensions in the coalition, particularly as it looked likely that one of the SGP ministers was going to be in spot of bother over misleading Parliament on wind power potential in Scottish Waters. Do you push on on an issue where the public are not strongly supportive of your position or do you risk a bit of rift with your coalition partners? Messy choice. And you and your government start to look a bit less awesome and you dip a few points in the polls just at the time you need to not dip in the polls and it becomes hard.

(2) Glenn Campbell you bell-end.
danieldwilliam: (Default)
I am both a spectator and a participant in politics. I'm a political activist (less so now than in past years) but watching politics is also a hobby.

When ever a political controversy* emerges I tend to look at in the following dimensions as a first pass to get a feel for the likely direction of the campaign.


Thinking about the voters

Heat - how much do voters agree or disagree with you

Salience - how important do the voters think this issue is

Valence - how likely is this issue to change the voters voting behaviour

Calefaction - how likely is this issue to change voters engagement or activism

This is the psephology area.

If voters agree with you and will change their vote because of that agreement you are on to a political winner. If they agree with you but don't think the issue is important and everyone has similar policies then that's nice, but not important.


Thinking about the policy

Aim - are the aims of the policy useful

Fitness - does the policy actually achieve the policy aims

Side Effects - what other impacts does the policy have

Winners - who benefits from the policy, who suffers from the policy

This is the wonk area - what does the policy do, for whom, does it work and what else happens if you implement the policy.




Thinking about the party and the polity

Truthiness - does the policy sound like it will achieve the policy aims

Constituency - does the policy have a large "natural constituency**" of people who are directly affected

Like Us - does the policy sound like us, can it make us sound like we don't want to sound

Factional Blocker - is there a faction with power who feel strongly about this policy being put forward


This is around the presentation and messaging of policy and values.

There are lots of policies that are technically good policies and in policy areas people think are important that don't get carried out because they don't sound right.

Decriminalising drugs and focusing prison policy on rehabilitation and re-training would work, but it makes you sound soft on criminals. Dredging rivers sounds like it ought to solve problems of flooding but it actually only moves water downstream quicker causing a worse flood down river.

Thatcher's presentation of the public finances as best run like a prudent housewife would run her home keeps tripping the Labour Party in to the Geddes Axe because no matter how sound your Keynesian macro-economics is voters think frugality in public spending is the sign of a political party managing the economy well.

If you think about the front page of the Sun newspaper and all the upstream and downstream processes from that - that's this bit.


So that's the framework I'm using when I look at a policy or legislative initiative.

*Not a scandal, a disagreement about policy or values

** this is very specifically not people who are interested in the issue or think it is important but people directly impacted or those people in close relationships with them. I think business rates for local shops is probably an important policy area if you want vibrant cities that serve their citizens well - I am not the owner of a corner shop. The classic example of how this plays is the contrast in the USA between the rapid shift on policy for gay and lesbian people compared to the slower shift on policy for African American civil rights. It turns out that when gay and lesbian people are able to be open about themselves every family or friendship group includes one or two homosexuals. Everyone is directly affected. This is not true for African Americans.
danieldwilliam: (Default)
I have been thinking a little about vaccine passports and nightclubs and mulling over two concepts from jurisprudence and public policy; magical legal thinking and the chilling effect

Some time ago David Allen Green wrote about magical legal thinking, the notion that just passing some legislation on it's own doesn't change the world. Banning something by law doesn't make it stop in and of itself. Something else must happen for their to be an effect, typically some enforcement action. He wrote about it more recently in relation to COVID lockdown regulations.


https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1312773215903772676?lang=en

The chilling effect is what happens when some rule might or might not apply to you and you are worried that either you will suffer some enforcement activity or have to perform some onerous compliance tasks. A recent example is the impact on third sector organisations of the Transparency of Lobbying Act 2014. Which regulates the campaigning behaviour of charities during election periods. For fear of non-compliance many charities restricted their campaigning activities.

And so to vaccine passports. What then is the purpose of a vaccine passport? What in law is a nightclub? What is the effect we are trying to have.

I think the proposed regulations are mostly not about regulating a specific risky behaviour undertaken by a specific group at particular risk. Lots of unvaccinated people crowded in to a small space, drinking and talking or singing loudly and moving around energetically sounds like risky behaviour during COVID, whether that's in nightclub or a sports arena or a theatre or whatever. The venue being a nightclub or not being a nightclub doesn't strike me as important to the additional risk. The risk is not changed by the magical legal application of a ban on unvaccinated people in nightclubs - as defined in the interpretation section of the relevant legislation or the dictionary. I think the regulation is mostly aimed at encouraging unvaccinated people to get vaccinated by harnessing the chilling effect. The chilling effect is the mechanism by which the ban on some behaviours has the desired policy effect of increasing vaccination rates and reducing opportunities for transmission of COVID.

Do you want to go to a nightclub - or a similar venue that might or might not be a nightclub? Then get vaccinated. That avoids you risking being turned away from the venue you want to go to.

Are you a nightclub? Or perhaps a similar type of venue? Not sure and want to avoid criminal prosecution or civil actions for damages? Then start asking your customers to prove their vaccination status?

Some ambiguity is actually helpful in achieving the policy aims as it spreads the chilling effect more widely.

People are entitled to be able to understand the law in advance. It should as much as possible be clear, unambiguous and actionable by citizens. An unclear definition of nightclubs is unfair in much the same way that an unclear definition of cafe was unfair earlier on in the pandemic and businesses were being closed. However, I think there is a crucial difference here - the level of harm from the ambiguity in definition is much less. In the earlier situation some business were being closed, some allowed to open under certain circumstances. Some closed businesses or the people working in them would be entitled to financial support from the state. Closing your business and putting your staff on furlough is a big thing. A big thing to get wrong. A big risk for the state to pass to you with an unclear set of rules.

Less serious I think to have an ambiguous definition of nightclub for the purposes of vaccine passports. Some venues that are not properly nightclubs might employ a few extra security staff. They may turn away some customers. Compared to being closed or not closed that is relatively small impact. The state may bring some prosecutions and lose them. That is not good, but in the grand scheme of things not terrible. The state may end up having to pay some compensation to those wrongly accused to operating a nightclub improperly, but not close to the same order of magnitude of compensation or support required when closing bars but leaving open cafes.

And the legislation does not have to operate for long to have the desired policy effect. If I am correct in my view that the primary aim of the legislation is to encourage twenty-somethings to make sure they are vaccinated then the mere threat of the legislation may be sufficient to drive up vaccination rates. If in six months time the courts decide that the definition of nightclub in the legislation is useless or narrows it so that it only applies to a handful of places in Scotland, but in the meantime 50,000 additional vaccinations have happened as a result of the chilling effect then the law has achieved its policy goals and at modest cost too.
danieldwilliam: (Default)
After each Scottish General Election I like to play around with some counter-factuals and see how some conceivable changes in voting pattern, turn-out, constituency wins would impact the overall result. Largely this involves dividing some large numbers by some small numbers in a spreadsheet.

Round 1 of this analysis will look at the following questions, which either occurred to me or were prompted by questions from someone.

(If you have a question you'd like me to look at please feel free. If you'd like a copy of the excel spreadsheet that I've built so far, you are welcome to it. )

Raw data comes from Ballot Box Scotland - who deserve some emotional and financial support from anyone interested in Scottish politics.

1) What would happen if Independent Green Voice votes transferred to the Scottish Green Party?

2) What would happen if Alba votes transferred to the SNP?

3) What would happen if Alba votes transferred to the Scottish Green Party? On top of the Independent Green Voice transfer?

4) What would happen if 10% or 20% of the votes transferred from the SNP to ALBA?

5) What would happen if 5% or 10% of the votes transferred from the SNP to the Scottish Green Party?


1) What would happen if Independent Green Voice votes transferred to the Scottish Green Party?

9,192 people voted for a party called Independent Green Voice. There is some question about whether Independent Green Voice are actually a green party.

They seem to be made up of far-right politicians including some former BNP activists. I guess it's not inconceivable that the far-right could take an environmentalist position. Hitler was a vegetarian after all. They have been standing in elections since 2003 polling a thousand or so votes each time. They don't appear to have been set up for this election.

https://greenpolitics.fandom.com/wiki/Independent_Green_Voice

http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/Registrations/PP293

Had those 9,192 votes been cast for the Scottish Green Party then the Scottish Green Party would have won two additional seats. One in South Scotland and one in Glasgow.

Given that Independent Green Voice have been operating for nearly two decades in Glasgow it is probably not a safe assumption that everyone who voted for them was duped.

2) What would happen if Alba votes transferred to the SNP?

44,913 people voted for Alba. Had all of those votes transferred to the SNP they would not have won any additional seats.


3) What would happen if Alba votes transferred to the Scottish Green Party? On top of the Independent Green Voice transfer?

Unsurprisingly, had the Alba votes transferred to the Scottish Green Party they would have won the same two additional seats in South Scotland and Glasgow. Even adding both factors together still only means those two additional seats.

The reason for this is the d'Hondt ratchet. D'hondt PR allocates the next seat in each round based on your number of votes divided by the number of seats you already have. (Votes / (Seats +1) So every time you win a seat it becomes significantly harder to win the next one. By way of illustration. The SNP won over a million regional list votes and only 2 regional seats on top of their 62 constituency seats. The Scottish Greens on 220k regional list votes picked up 8 seats. In North East Scotland the SNP on 147,910 list votes but 9 constituency seats start the d'Hondt allocation process with a score of 14,791 ((147,910 / (9+1)) and the Scottish Greens with 22,735 votes start on a score of 22,735 ( 22,735 / (0+1)). The Greens go on to win a seat in the 6th allocation round.

The Greens finish the election in 4th place but a distant 4th place, some 265 thousand votes behind 3rd place Labour.

Whist a relatively small number of votes just makes a difference in two regions the Scottish Greens had not won a second seat but were close, once those seats are won an extra few thousand votes in the regions they have already won two seats get divided away by d'Hondt pretty quickly.

4) What would happen if 10% or 20% of the votes transferred from the SNP to ALBA?

Had 10% of the total votes cast moved from the SNP to ALBA (SNP down from 1,094k by 271k to 823k, Alba up from 45k to 316k then Alba would have won 11 seats. 316k is a quite a lot more than the Scottish Greens vote tally which gained them 8 seats.

The SNP would lose 2 seats. The Scottish Greens would lose 2 seats. Labour 3 and the Conservatives 4. Net gain of pro-independence seats is 7.

Had 20% of the vote shifted Alba would have ended up on 20 seats, with the SNP down 2, Scottish Greens down 4, Conservatives down 8 and Labour down 6. Net pro-indy seats 14.

So the concept of the Alba strategy is sound. Perhaps the personnel involved need a closer look.

5) What would happen if 5% or 10% of the votes transferred from the SNP to the Scottish Green Party?

Had 5% of the total vote cast ( 136k) swung from SNP to the Scottish Greens the Scottish Greens would have won 5 more seats, the SNP down 2, Conservatives down 3. Net pro-indy seats +3

For a 10% swing Scottish Greens up 11 seats to 19, SNP down 2, Conservatives down 4, Labour down 5, net pro-indy seats 9. Which is one more than the net pro-indy seats from a swing the ame the size from the SNP to Alba. At a 20% swing (Alba's target the Scottish Greens finish on 25 seats, all but 2 from the Conservatives and Labour, and also enough to be the second largest party.

Who would have thought that tactical voting for an established already existing party would prove more effective than setting up your own just weeks before the election? (Me,)

So that's round 1 of the election counter-factual analysis.

Round 2 when I get to it is going to look at the impact of some of the marginal constituency votes and how marginal some of the regional list seats are. As a teaser the d'Hondt ratchet is a pretty stern mistress and once you've won a seat or two it takes a lot of additional votes at the top end to produce even small swings at the bottom of round 7 or 8. So prepared to underwhealmed by a lot "and they were not really close at all in the end" type comments.
danieldwilliam: (Default)
I watched Nicola Sturgeon's victory speech after the SNP and Scottish Green's election victory in Scotland. I thought it was an excellent example of political rhetoric and I agree with it; both the content and the way the content was presented.

I think it is a speech in five acts. (The full text of the speech is in the comments, as is a short note for non-Scots on the context)

ACT One

We have won this election. We, the SNP, have won the election, we will form the next government. We have won the election comfortably. Overwhelmingly. It was a big win. Perhaps the biggest win ever.

"Indeed, we have won more votes and a higher share of the votes in the constituency ballot than any party in the history of devolution.

This election result is - by any standard - an extraordinary and historic achievement."

ACT Two

We are a One Nation Government, we are here for everyone. That includes refugees, and everyone else who lives in Scotland

"Wherever you are from, whatever age you are, whatever your background – and no matter who you voted for - the SNP in government is dedicated to working hard for you.

I pledge that the task of building a better Scotland for everyone who lives here will be my priority every single day."

ACT Three

COVID

ACT Four

Other progressive policy and administrative endeavours which were in our manifesto.

Elected governments are usually expected to carry out their manifesto.

ACT Five

The people of Scotland have voted for an independence referendum. That is what it means when two parties who have a clear committent to an independence referendum win an election.

It's not me, it's not the SNP, it is the democratic will of the Scottish people as expressed through the ballot box.

"It is a commitment made to the people by a majority of the MSPs who will take their seats in our national parliament next week.

Usually - and by the normal standards of democracy - parties are expected to deliver on the commitments they make in elections, not face attempts to block them from doing so."

If anyone tries to block this from happening they are putting themselves in opposition to the democratic will of the people. if they do that then they have changed the nature of the Union from a voluntary partnership to a something else.

The outcome of the referendum is for the people of Scotland to decide but they have decided to have one.

Speech ends with a summary of the Five Acts.

So what I think is going on is this...

Act One establishes the speaker's credentials to make the claims she is about to make. Nicola Sturgeon leads the SNP, the SNP won the election, it wasn't even close. The SNP has been chosen to run Scotland.

Act Two - attempts to defuse Unionist concerns that they will despised in their own land. The SNP are trying to build a nation which serves even Syrian refugees, everyone in Scotland will be served by this government. Unionists don't worry, this includes you.

Act Three - I won't let the important constitutional questions get in the way of dealing with the life and death pandemic. I am off to do that right now. I'm not an extremist or a fanatic. I know people are dying or loosing their jobs. I will do everything I can to fix this before we start on other stuff.

Act Four - here is some of the other stuff. It was in our manifesto, so people will expect us to deliver it. But by the way, this is the kind of Scotland I'm trying to build, and see Act Two, I'm building it for everyone.

Act Five - but we did win, and one of the things we said we'd do was have a referendum on independence. If Westminster tries to prevent it happening they are picking a fight with you, the people of Scotland, not with me. You voted for this, it's your country, it's supposed to be a democracy and a voluntary union, you should get the referendum you voted for. If you don't, you should ask what sort of country you are actually living in.


It's a pretty bald speech. Plain and simple. There's not a lot of sub-text to it. Mostly the subtext is in Act Two, showing by example that non-SNP voters have nothing to fear. There's a little bit in Act 5. You are invited to consider what the UK Parliament's refusal to support a second referendum says about Scotland's place in the UK. There is a hint that we are an English imperial possession not a partner but it's not said out loud.

It doesn't have much rhetorical flourish. It's not a speech that Obama or Blair would have delivered. It's probably better for that. Directness is what is called for her and Sturgeon lacks Obama's lyricism and has less of Blair's knack for a carefully crafted slogan-meme. But it says 80% of what it intends to say out loud and the obscurer parts are pretty clear.

I think it lays out quite a clear narrative. We won. We should do the things we said we would do. Mostly that is dealing with substantive problems for everyone. It does include a referendum. If you like my solutions to the problems you will probably like an independent Scotland. If you don't think Scotland should have a referendum perhaps you should think about whether you believe in democracy.

I like the speech.

And, I personally, have little doubt about Sturgeon's personal sincerity. I believe it is possible for the Scottish Government to prepare for a second independence referendum and I believe Sturgeon will concentrate most government effort on dealing with the pandemic and delivering the other hundred pages of her manifesto.
danieldwilliam: (Default)
My conservative forecast for Alba Party seats at the upcoming Scottish General Election is between 0 and 20. 0/73 Constituency Seats and between 0-20 out 56 Regional List Seats.

The SNP have consistently won 40%+ on the List over the last few election cycles. If half of those people vote for the Alba Party they they get somewhere between 20% and 22% of the vote. A bit less than 20% of the vote got the Scottish Labour Party 24 seats, including 3 constituency seats. 23% got the Conservatives 31 seats including 7 constituency seats. So 20% of the List vote gets you about 20 seats.

I think the Alba Party getting more than half of the SNP List vote is fantastical and to be clear I doubt very much if they will get anywhere near close to 20%.

The bottom of the range is zero seats.

The Regional List Vote d'Hondt system of PR used as part of Scotland's Alternative Member System has an effective threshold of about 5.5% of the vote to get a seat. The List is regional, so it's possible to do well in one or two regions, badly in one or two regions and still pick up 1-2 seat with an overall national average of lower than that. On the other hand, depending on the actual election outcome you could get about 6% evenly across the nation and still not win any List Seats.

So an okay performance of between 4%-6% could see the Alba Party win zero seats. The Lib Dems got 5.2% of the vote and 5 seats. 4 in the Constituencies and 1 in the North East Region - they'd have picked up few more Regional Seats had they not won the Constituency Seats they did. The Scottish Greens on 6.6% of the Regional list won 6 seats, concentrated in the Central Belt.

Anything above 6% nationally and I think they start to be assured of seats. There are 8 electoral regions in Scotland. Central Scotland, Glasgow, Highlands and Islands, Lothian, Mid Scotland and Fife, North East Scotland, South Scotland and West Scotland.

So a vote tally of slightly above 6% probably wins seats in half of those Regions, for 4 seats. 8%-9% is probably a seat in each region for 8 seats in total.

At 10%-15% a lot would depend on how clustered the vote is and how other parties do but you could assume 2 seats in each Region for 16 seats in total.

My political intuition tells me that 2% is a more likely vote tally than 20%. New parties struggle to gain traction. Alex Salmond is an unpopular figure in Scotland and the one thing that would shift that, the uncovering of a conspiracy by the SNP leadership to have him convicted on entirely false charges, doesn't appear to be happening. But I could believe 5%. I could even see 10% with a following wind and a bit of media exposure (in what will be an air and cyber war heavy campaign because of COVD.) Looks like my concern that the Scottish Green's vote includes a significant number of SNP voters tactically and that they might shift to the Alba Party is not happening. Salmond is particularly unpopular with SGP voters.

So, you pays your money, you takes your choice. Anywhere between 0 and 20 seats.
danieldwilliam: (Default)
Today is the earliest possible date for the publication of notice of election for the Holyrood general election May 2021.

It's therefore the earliest possible date for nomionations to be submitted which are permitted at any time after the notice of election.

Nominations close on 31st March.

I'll be watching to see who is nomanated and where by the Independence for Scotland Party and Action for Independence and whether Andy Wightman runs as an indendent in Lothians.
danieldwilliam: (Default)
I'm not surprised that Rangers are not cooperating with the Scottish government over celebrations of their championship. Given the Rangers Tax Case and it's aftermath and particualarly the Mulholland Affair I'm not sure I'd cooperate with the Scottish Government if I were a Ranger official.
danieldwilliam: (Default)
I think the Democrats are going to win the 2020 elections. I think they will win the Presidency. I think they will win the Senate. I think they will win the House. I think they will win a number of governerships or state legislatures.

They will have a brief window when they control both the legislature and the executive and have wide spread power or influence in the states. There is an opportunity to a) move the Overtone Window and b) hand out a punishment beating to the Republican Party to encourage them to return to a level of normed politics commensurate with running a liberal democracy.

So if I were them, I would do the following

Supreme Court

I'd expand the Supreme Court and I'd do so quite aggressively, and I do it twice, once in year 1 of the 117th Congress and once in year 2. Firstly, to expand the court twice in managable steps and secondly to make the Republicans vote against expanding the court twice. (This won't stop them voting to expand the Supreme Court when next they control all three sections of the legislative process but it might slow some of them down. )

I would set up investigations in to the one or two serving Justices how might have committed serious criminal acts in the past. I doubt that impeachments will follow but it will put the Republicans on the backfoot for a bit and make it harder for them to appoint unsuitable candidates in the future.

New States

I would admit Washington DC and Puerto Rico as states. Those extra 4 senators, extra two states and two extra state delegations in Congress, would be very helpful and those places should be states.

Redistricting

In as many states as possible I would set up neutral redistricting commissions and attempt to enshrine those in state constitutions.

Voter Rights

More voter rights legislation and more enforcement of it.

Trump Operation

Massive investigations in to the Trump operation targeting pretty much everyone who ever knew him. I think I'd be aiming to jail one person a day for the whole of the 117th Congress. I'd spread that as widely as possible. I'd aim to make sure that ordinary Republicans were scared to put an operator like Trump anywhere near the White House again for fear that they, personally, would do jail time.

US Constitutional Amendments

I would propose about half a dozen constitutional amendments in Congress. I doubt Congress would vote for them by the required 2/3rds majority but the aim of the exercise is not necessarily to get the Constitution amended but to make Republicans vote and campaign against things most ordinary USians think are reasonable.

Item one would be a return of the Equal Right Amendment

Then some carefully crafted amendments on voting rights, medical care, bodily autonomy, factual reporting in the media, LGBTQ+ rights, climate change or energy policy, presidential capacity, executive anti-corruption and transparency measures.

I think I'd stay away from gun control amendments but I'd hope that the demise of the NRA, Democratic influence in more states and the progressive composition of the Supreme Court would allow some practical controls to be brought in. Mind you, I'd be tempted to include an amendment on access to education that made practical gun control a live issue.

Later on in the 117th Congress I might want to look at a constitutional convention after the Republicans had voted down my slate of amendments.

(Largely the point of this is not to amend the constitution in 2020-22 but to make the Republicans expend money, time and political capital fighting these things and to normalise the idea that these sorts of things ought to be protected under the constitution. )

Policing

I would bring in measures to monitor policing, in particular a central database of deaths whilst in contact with the police and some measures to support local governments when removing serving officers who were members of newly proscribed terrorist organisations.

Anti- Terrorist Activity

I would proscribe a number of right-wing terrorist groups as terrorist groups.

That should keep the right-wing of the Republican party playing on their side of the fence for a few years.
danieldwilliam: (Default)
Looks like Dominic Cummings is staying in post. At least for the time being. (1)

Good says I.

I've never seen Twitter so focused on one thing. Now, I definately have a Twitter feed with a bubble around it. It's largely political analysis, lawyers, economics, energy and drama with a few jokers. It's mostly but not entirely left leaning. The people I follow on Twitter are paying attention to daily politics in a way most people simply don't. There is no football. There are no cats. (2) However, I don't think this is going away. I don't think it would go away now even if Cummings were removed from post. I don't think people will forget. I don't think they will forgive. I don't think they will move one. (3)

What has been really striking are two things. The ratio on Tory MP's tweeting support for Dominic Cummings and the moving stories, retweeted thousands of times, from ordinary people about the journeys they have not taken because of the coronavirus, the regulations, the guidance and the shared endevour to protect the common good from a deadly, novel and not well understood virus. Dozens and dozens of people sharing vicerally painful accounts of not being able to sit with dying relatives or go to funerals or sitting alone, in an empty home, griefing. All of them having done so so they could follow the guidance and the regulations and the spirit and purpose of the rules and not spread a deadly disease around the country. I've never seen so much anger, so commonly shared on Twitter.

Fuck Dominic Cummings and what he's done to honesty in politics, to integrity, to reason and to the rule of law, but most of all fuck Dominic Cummings for what he's done to thousands of grieving people by making them feel stupid in their grief and loss.

But let him stay in post says I. For he's already done his damage to the grieving of Great Britan. Let him stay and damage the Tory Party who adopted him, despite him despising them, because he offered them a cheap and easy route to power.

Let him stay in post until after Keir Starmer has asked Boris Johnson all about at Prime Minister's Questions. Let him stay in post until after Ian Blackford has followed Keir Starmer a week on Wednesday. Let him stay in post for another week after that. Let him give Starmer a stick to beat Johnson with and Blackford a stick to beat the Union with.

Let him stay in post so the public can see government minister after government minister spin and lie and twist in press conference after press conference and interview after interview. Let us see them lie so obviously about something that is so obviously wrong.

Let him stay in post until he's the lead news story for weeks in a row. Let him stay in post and force every Tory Minister to dip their hands in the blood of all the people who died alone, just to to keep Dominic Cummings in post. Let him stay in post so everyone can see what the Tories under Johnson actually stand for and who they actually stand with.

Let his hubris break the Prime Minister and the Tory Party.

He should have gone last week, but seeing as he's staying, let him stay and hope some good will come of this staying and that he will take the rest of his stained and bloody cronies with him.





(1) I think he has done a bad, wrong thing. On the face of the facts as he has presented them and as I understand them its difficult to see how he hasn't infringed the coronavirus regulations. I think his behaviour has been unethical. I would not have done what he did. I appear not to be alone.

(2) I realise this makes me wrong, or at least in a minority, which in Brexit Britain is much the same thing.

(3) First polling on this shows a 20 point drop in Johnson's approval rating to net -2 and an 18 point drop in the government's approval rating.
danieldwilliam: (Default)
I've seen a couple of my friends comment on the difficulty of not touching their face.

I was thinking of ways to help people not do that - putting your hands in your pockets sprung to mind.

Then I was thinking of things you could do to mitigate the risks of touching your face - periodically giving your face a wipe with an alcohol infused wipe.

Then it occured to me that women's clothing often doesn't have pockets and women often wear make-up which makes scrubbing their face every couple of hours problematic.

Touching your face turns out to be a feminist issue.
danieldwilliam: (Default)
Political parties put a lot of effort in to making themselves the Good Guys in their supporters and activists minds. This involves making the other political parties look like the Bad Guys, and closely linking themselves to key ideological touchstones and policy platforms and creating some element of tribalism.

With this in mind I am viewing the public ruminations by the likes of Sturgeon and Swinson that a Government of National Unity, perhaps lead by Corbyn, perhaps not, not as the exercising in public of some internal dialogue and more as warming up their base over a two week period to accept a deal that they have already agreed with the Labour Party.

Not certain about this, but, I think the pronouncements are more internal party PR than public debate.
danieldwilliam: (Default)

It's been a quiet time here at the Tartan Shortbread Institute of Scotology, much sound and fury (5), signifying nothing and all that but it looks likely that there will be a general election (or General Election) sometime soon. So we thought we'd better put on our pork pie hats of prognostication and perform some professional predicting, because, who doesn't swoon for a short series of syllables that sounds like other syllables sound(1). Anyhow, here is our latest report Twenty-Five True Facts About the Upcoming General Election That You Can Stick on the Side of a Bus.

For True Facts Continue )

danieldwilliam: (Default)

I'm not in favour of Mark Field being arrested.

I do not think he has behaved well.

I don't think he, or any serving Minister of the Crown, or Member of Parliament should be above the law. When these things have been put to the trial I'm a Parliamentarian, a Leveller and a Radical.

I definately think what happened should be investigated. Mark Field should be interviewed under caution. If appropriate charges should be brought.

Cynically, with a majority of less than 3,500 in the Cities of London and Westminster,  I would not be unhappy if he were convicted and his seat vacated and a by-election called.

But I am not in favour of him being arrested on the night in question.

Firstly, I'm not convinced that even a worst case interpretation of his actions, allowing for a any defence of self-defence or preventing a crime or a breech of the peace or similar he might put forward,  constitutes a crime in England. I am not an English criminal lawyer but I do hold a foreign law degree.

Secondly, what is the point of arresting Mark Field? Mark Field is a public figure. He has been clearly identified as being involved in this incident. His address is a matter of public record. As a Government Minister he's probably not a flight risk. Arresting him on the night isn't going to prevent further disorder, the disorder had finished, and isn't going to stop the incident being investigated.

Thirdly, and most importantly, I think the police should tred carefully when arresting public officials. The police are not politically neutral. Being arrested and detained is not just an inconvenience. You are, temporarily deprived of your liberty. Pride's Purge is a thing to be mindful of and I'd be uneasy if, say, Dominic Grieve were arrested and detained for dangerous driving on the way to Parliament on the 22nd of July this year.

I am clearly advocating a double standard here. I think the police should be more careful about arresting sitting MP's than they are about arresting other cirtizens.  I think what we have here is a clash of two different due processes. The micro due process of citizens being subject to the law, tried under the law, in public, with a fair process and the macro process of MP's being as free as possible to go about their duties representing their constituents, making the law and holding the Government to account. These are rights that MP's hold in order to serve the citizenry in a democratic country. The rights of MP's are rights held in trust for you and me.   For sure, investigate the incident, bring charges if warranted, convict if the evidence says so but I think, on balance, in order to fully protect the democratic rights of citizens an  arrest immediately after the incident would have been unnecessary.

danieldwilliam: (Default)

I'm attempting to summarise what I think happens next with Brexit and the Tory Party. Showing my workings. I'm not strongly wedded to this, happy to engage in reasoned conversation.

In summary,

1) On balance,  I think Brexit will not happen. Sort of 55% change of it not happening.

2) I think the next Tory PM and the one after that will both be minced by the process, regardless of the outcome.

The only thing there is a majority for in the House of Commons is no Hard Brexit. The House has taken control of its business in order to prevent that. Attempts by the Government to do an end run around the constitutional priviliges of the House of Commons are likely to a) spark extra-ordinary constitutional measures like a Vote of No Confidence b) make Remainers and Constitutionalists dig in and decide to go for hard remain.

So I think no No Deal Brexit.  This implies one of a) a further extension in October b) revoking Article 50 in October, c) some sort of deal in October.

I don't think the EU will change any aspect of the current deal unless the UK changes its redlines. Those redlines include the Free Movement of People. I can't see the Tory Party moving on that. The House of Commons might accept the current deal but I don't think it will. The Lib Dems and the SNP will have concluded from the Euro elections that they will do better in their target seats the more Remainerer they are. The Labour Party is probably about to shift towards a more People's Vote / Remainery position.

So I think it is unlikely that there will be a deal without an attached confirmatory referendum.  I think Remain will win a confirmatory referendum. (Unless the deal is so altered as to be membership of the Single Market without the political membership of the EU institutions. That might just be enough of a compromise to win.)

A confirmatory referendum will probably require an extension from October of about 7 months. Which takes us to May 2020.

It's possible that Parliament might be pushed in to a position where it has a last minute choice between Hard Brexit and Revoke. I don't think it will come to that. If it does I think Parliament will vote to Revoke and if necessary VONC the PM. The PM would probably have to go anyway under those circumstances.

I don't think the next Tory Prime Minister will like this.

The next Tory PM (probably not Boris Johnson, probably Raab) will probably win the position by talking up their Brexitiness. Whilst there looks to be a small but significant move from Leave to Remain and that move seems to be continuing and it showed up in the Euro election results a) the focus of the Brexit Party vote translates in to headline grabbing seat wins and b) most of the Tory Party think they are fishing in the same waters as the Brexit Party. (I think they are missing a generational opportunity to connect with younger middle-class voters who are economically centre-right. If they are lucky they will have many opportunities to rue this in the middle of the 21st Century.)

I *think* that at some point the next Tory PM is going to try and a) renegotiate the Deal - and fail, b) try to ram the deal through the House - and fail, c) try to leave without a deal - and fail and end up looking like May but with less time to play with.  I don't think they can risk going to the country at the current moment and also the Fixed Term Parliament Act VONC proceedure means that in between the VONC and dissolution AN Other probably gets a chance to form a government. This is more likely if they can assure the Queen that they can command a majority in the House.

Having failed to renegotiate, ram through or leave without the deal the next Tory PM will probably have to go back to the EU and ask for an extension (or be forced to by the House of Commons). My guess is that the EU will insist on second referendum.

So the Tories will probably dump their next PM sometime after that individual is blamed for the extension / People's Vote.

Their next PM will either try the May / Raab route for a third time and be minced or they will "surrender" to the EU and be minced.

At this point we are about due a General Election.

Alternatively, either the next Tory PM or the one after will succed in leaving without a deal and the several tens of thousands of deaths, the food riots and economic shock leading to Daily Mail readers suffering lower house prices and also cancer will mince that PM.

Or the next PM will have to fess up about how difficult Brexit is and then be minced by the Brexity wing of their own party.

It's mince all the way down.

And probably further delays to Brexit, probably a second referendum and probably no actual Brexit.

Meanwhile, the SNP will effectively launch the second Scottish Indepedence referendum campaign the week after next with the introduction of enabling legislation for that referendum. Which should land on the UK PM's desk for the veto just about the time the next Tory PM arrives so that half of Scotland starts by hating them as an enemy of the (Scottish) People.

Other side predictions

Change UK to merge with the Lib Dems by Christmas.

Corbyn to become the most unpopular and most poorly rated leader of the Opposition ever (again / still) by Christmas.

Westminister voting intentions for Labour / Tories combined to fall below 50% by Christmas.

The Electoral  Commission to have investigated the Brexit Party's Euro election conduct by Christmas.

danieldwilliam: (Default)

Today I am going shopping for emergency supplies.

The last time I did this I was 14, living in Townsville and we were expecting a Category 5 (out of 5) cyclone to go right over the top of us.

I'm a middle-aged, middle-class man, married to a middle-aged, middle-class woman,  living in one of the most cultured cities in the world, both with good jobs and our country and our government have so fucked up our foreign policy that I am genuinely concerned that there might be an interuption in our food supplies resulting in social disorder.

I didn't vote for the cyclone and I didn't vote for this shower of shambolic ineptitudes and their policy but I refuse to give them the same moral credence. A cyclone is an act of nature, Brexit is an act of the Tory Party.

Profile

danieldwilliam: (Default)
danieldwilliam

February 2025

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
91011 12131415
16171819202122
232425262728 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Apr. 23rd, 2025 03:48 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios