2015 General Election Day 6: #nicolasturgeonsfault

Except for viewers in Scotland
Except for viewers in Scotland
This was meant to be a relatively quiet period in the campaign, wasn’t it? Thanks to Nicola Sturgeon doing moderately well in the leaders’ debate on Thursday, it seems the right-wing press have gone back to their 2010 election manuals and begun monstering her the same way they did with Nick Clegg. This time around, it seems that the whole thing hasn’t yet launched #nicolasturgeonsfault into the forefront of Twitter’s global trending topics, but the advances in social media have meant that a whole story was rebutted and the reporters were on the back foot trying to defend it before the paper itself had even published.

Of course, there weren’t legions of cybernats in 2010 either, so there wasn’t anyone there to attribute the whole thing to an MI5 plot and as proof of the establishment’s desire to crush the dreams of an independent Scotland. In that spirit, I would therefore point out that the obvious beneficiaries of this are the purely Scottish newspapers, as it will likely drive down sales of the Telegraph north of the border. Yes, instigating a potentially international crisis in order to drive newspaper sales is the stuff of a more ridiculous Bond movie, but I’m pretty sure I could get at least one of the papers to believe that the SNP want rid of Trident to give them a base in which to store Alex Salmond’s stealth boat. Then again, we’ve yet to hear the sages of English High Toryism weigh in on this yet, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see Simon Heffer blaming it on a Scottish-French plot, meaning England must be prepared to defend itself from a revival of the Auld Alliance.

More seriously, a lot of people are wondering who benefits from this story, and the more general attacks on Sturgeon and the SNP, but I think it shouldn’t be looked at on its own. The Tories are trying to spread a message – it’s in a lot of their leaflets, and David Cameron uses it the phrase almost as often as ‘long term economic plan’ – that the only alternative to single party rule is a ‘coalition of chaos’. Anything that gets people confused about just what one of the other parties wants or might do is, in this view, good for the Tories. It’s also why they won’t talk about any of their own potential coalition partners, because they want to distance themselves as far as possible from any coalition talk. We can expect a lot more of this over the next few weeks, and we haven’t even got to the rerun of 2010’s ‘a hung Parliament would be a disaster’ theme yet. There’ll likely be another concerted attack on the Greens at some point soon, followed by a ton of hyperbole about the vast ideological chasms that divide Liberal Democrats and how Vince Cable and Tim Farron will undermine any future coalition with the Tories. By the last week of the campaign, we’ll likely be back to the ‘vote Tory, or the country gets it‘ messaging they were using last time.

One other thought that comes from this is that we were to get a Tory majority, we’d be treated to the spectacle of David Cameron attempting to renegotiate Britain’s membership of the EU against a background of an increasingly unhinged and Europhobic right-wing press. Cameron himself has shown he has no problems with insulting those he would hope to negotiate with, but given that the press is now being used to leak details of private meetings with ambassadors, what could we expect to see while he’s trying to negotiate with other countries? Trying to do something as complex as renegotiating EU membership is going to be a complex process, and doing it against a cacophonous soundtrack of Johnny Foreigner bashing orchestrated by press barons who would be quite happy to see a British EU exit would add even more complexity to it. To be honest, it feels like a surefire recipe for absolute chaos and something certain to derail any long term economic plan in a short-term mess of bickering and xenophobia.

So, having thought I’d be short of material for the weekend, I can boot writing about the Why Vote books to tomorrow, but rest assured that the one I’ve already finished has given me plenty of material. If you want to read about ill-though-out policy proposals in the meantime, may I direct you to the post I wrote this morning?

And finally, two of the more amusing bits of election news of the day. First, George Galloway managed to get into a spat on Twitter with a brewery after he took offense to a fairly innocuous message from them. Unfortunately, Courage is already trademarked by another brewery, but I would hope that we can all soon get to sample their Strength and Indefatigability ales alongside it.

Alongside that, we learn of another UKIP candidate standing down close to the election. For once, this isn’t because he’s done or said anything wrong, but because he’s got a new job. Congratulations to him, and let’s all wish him well and hope there’s no version of UKIP in the country he’s going to work in who’ll accuse him of taking a job from a citizen of that country.

2015 General Election Day 4: Not-so-Magnificent Seven

Another day, another debate. It didn’t turn into the seven-way shoutathon that I feared, but there were points when there were lots of people talking over each other – usually 2 or 3 of the men – though Julie Etchingham managed to keep them away from the worst of it.

The polling results seem to be coming up with a variety of results, and I think that’s because of two factors. First, there’s a partisanship factor, as people are inclined to think ‘their’ leader won, but secondly because it’s very hard for people to consistently judge who ‘won’ the debate. A lot of the variation between the polls could well be a result of question design – the criteria people are applying will vary a lot according to how they’re asked.

I think that to get a more useful response, you’d need to combine the result of various questions, but that would take a lot more time than the snap judgments required by the media. For a simple take, I think the ‘who did worst?’ questions may give a more honest response. Invert the scores from those and who’s ‘least worst’ may be more of an indication of the national mood than ‘who won?’

For me, there were no knockout blows or career-ending gaffes – though the fact-checking on Farage’s HIV claim could have some interesting results – and I think they’ll all come away from it thinking they did what they needed.

I think Nicola Sturgeon delivered the best performance of the night, and if she was leading a party that stood outside Scotland, things would get very interesting. Farage isn’t trying to broaden UKIP’s appeal, but is trying to work up their base and make sure it gets out to vote, but I also expect a lot of potential UKIP voters wouldn’t have been watching tonight.

Clegg, Miliband and Cameron all came out pretty evenly across the night, and while I can see Cameron’s reasons for not going to the debate on the 16th (even if I still think he should be empty chaired for doing so), I don’t know why Clegg isn’t going to be there. Is it too late for him to change his mind? Miliband wins by being equal to Cameron, so he’ll be relatively happy, but someone should tell him not to stare down the camera every time he talks.

For Bennett and Wood, just being on the stage was a boost for their parties, and like Farage they were aiming for a certain section of the audience. What might be the biggest boost for the Greens is Sturgeon criticising the Conservatives, Lib Dems and Labour. English voters enthused by her message might well go to the Greens as the nearest alternative.

And one final thought: I’d love to see a survey that looked at how much people thought the women talked compared to the men. They might be surprised by this finding: