Latest news with #anti-Farage
The National
4 days ago
- Politics
- The National
This is what the Hamilton by-election tells us about SNP chances for 2026
The swing implied by the Norstat poll a few days ago suggested that the SNP ought to defeat Labour in the by-election by a tiny margin of less than one percentage point, whereas in fact Labour came out on top by just over two points. That's a trivial difference, and thus the result lends support to the main message of the polls, which is that the SNP enjoy a substantial nationwide lead on the Holyrood constituency ballot. Hamilton should not be mistaken for a bellwether constituency. READ MORE: SNP campaign chief addresses independence focus after by-election loss It's significantly tilted towards Labour, in the sense that if support for the SNP and Labour was roughly tied across Scotland, Labour would likely be winning Hamilton by a double-digit margin. It's absolutely possible for the SNP to remain the largest single party in the Scottish Parliament if they lose in Hamilton again next May, and even if they lose by a bigger margin than they did in the by-election. The potential problem, however, is that by-election results do not just passively provide insights into the present state of play. They can also in themselves be drivers of public opinion. In particular, surprise by-election outcomes often generate snowball effects in favour of the winning party. The SNP are still haunted by the memory of how their unexpectedly heavy drubbing in the Rutherglen & Hamilton West by-election in 2023 provided Labour with a springboard that helped propel Keir Starmer to a majority of Scottish seats in the 2024 general election. Fortunately, there's a good reason for doubting that a similar effect will occur after Hamilton. The UK Labour government is one of the most hapless administrations in living memory, and it seems entirely plausible that within a few days the afterglow of the by-election result will be overshadowed by yet another misstep from Starmer or Rachel Reeves. If the SNP can just weather the short-term storm of a few painful headlines, it's conceivable that within a few months they'll look back at this by-election as having no real significance beyond the obvious fact that it reduced their contingent of MSPs by one. That said, it's also important to consider the question of the dog that didn't bark. The only reason the Labour win comes as a surprise is that expectations of a massive Reform UK breakthrough, and a two-horse race between the SNP and Reform, had been allowed to run away with themselves. If the result had played out in line with those expectations, there was a theory that John Swinney would have been in a no-lose situation, because he could have used any Reform win to rally the anti-Farage vote behind the SNP, who would have looked like the only remaining alternative to a Reform-led government in Edinburgh. READ MORE: 'We have work to do': John Swinney reacts to shock Hamilton by-election loss Instead, Anas Sarwar has been reconfirmed as the leading challenger to Swinney, albeit only just - and it's obviously a lot harder to paint Sarwar as a bogey-man. But in truth it's perhaps just as well for the SNP that Reform weren't able to use Hamilton to establish themselves as the main opposition party in Scotland. If they had done, there's a danger that the rump Tory vote might have moved across to Farage en masse, and pushed Reform to the type of vote share where they could have seriously threatened the SNP on the constituency ballot next year. There's something to be said for staying in the more familiar territory of an SNP v Labour battle, not least because Starmer's unpopularity ought to ensure there is a hard ceiling on Labour support next May. Another consolation for the SNP is that they can point to their narrow defeat as a timely wake-up call for the independence movement. The Scottish Green candidate in Hamilton took 695 votes, amounting to a 2.6% vote share. If there had been no Green candidate, and if the SNP had taken at least 87% of Green votes, Labour would have been defeated. In practice that's not what would have happened in the real world, so the Green intervention did not cost the SNP victory. But it's now clear that there are some central belt constituencies that the SNP will not win next year unless they can squeeze votes from smaller pro-independence parties, and unless they can persuade disillusioned SNP voters not to stay at home. A few constituencies here or there could make all the difference between retaining the pro-independence majority at Holyrood, and losing it.
The National
4 days ago
- Politics
- The National
This is the genuine silver lining in the SNP by-election loss
The swing implied by the Norstat poll a few days ago suggested that the SNP ought to defeat Labour in the by-election by a tiny margin of less than one percentage point, whereas in fact Labour came out on top by just over two points. That's a trivial difference, and thus the result lends support to the main message of the polls, which is that the SNP enjoy a substantial nationwide lead on the Holyrood constituency ballot. Hamilton should not be mistaken for a bellwether constituency. READ MORE: SNP campaign chief addresses independence focus after by-election loss It's significantly tilted towards Labour, in the sense that if support for the SNP and Labour was roughly tied across Scotland, Labour would likely be winning Hamilton by a double-digit margin. It's absolutely possible for the SNP to remain the largest single party in the Scottish Parliament if they lose in Hamilton again next May, and even if they lose by a bigger margin than they did in the by-election. The potential problem, however, is that by-election results do not just passively provide insights into the present state of play. They can also in themselves be drivers of public opinion. In particular, surprise by-election outcomes often generate snowball effects in favour of the winning party. The SNP are still haunted by the memory of how their unexpectedly heavy drubbing in the Rutherglen & Hamilton West by-election in 2023 provided Labour with a springboard that helped propel Keir Starmer to a majority of Scottish seats in the 2024 general election. Fortunately, there's a good reason for doubting that a similar effect will occur after Hamilton. The UK Labour government is one of the most hapless administrations in living memory, and it seems entirely plausible that within a few days the afterglow of the by-election result will be overshadowed by yet another misstep from Starmer or Rachel Reeves. If the SNP can just weather the short-term storm of a few painful headlines, it's conceivable that within a few months they'll look back at this by-election as having no real significance beyond the obvious fact that it reduced their contingent of MSPs by one. That said, it's also important to consider the question of the dog that didn't bark. The only reason the Labour win comes as a surprise is that expectations of a massive Reform UK breakthrough, and a two-horse race between the SNP and Reform, had been allowed to run away with themselves. If the result had played out in line with those expectations, there was a theory that John Swinney would have been in a no-lose situation, because he could have used any Reform win to rally the anti-Farage vote behind the SNP, who would have looked like the only remaining alternative to a Reform-led government in Edinburgh. READ MORE: 'We have work to do': John Swinney reacts to shock Hamilton by-election loss Instead, Anas Sarwar has been reconfirmed as the leading challenger to Swinney, albeit only just - and it's obviously a lot harder to paint Sarwar as a bogey-man. But in truth it's perhaps just as well for the SNP that Reform weren't able to use Hamilton to establish themselves as the main opposition party in Scotland. If they had done, there's a danger that the rump Tory vote might have moved across to Farage en masse, and pushed Reform to the type of vote share where they could have seriously threatened the SNP on the constituency ballot next year. There's something to be said for staying in the more familiar territory of an SNP v Labour battle, not least because Starmer's unpopularity ought to ensure there is a hard ceiling on Labour support next May. Another consolation for the SNP is that they can point to their narrow defeat as a timely wake-up call for the independence movement. The Scottish Green candidate in Hamilton took 695 votes, amounting to a 2.6% vote share. If there had been no Green candidate, and if the SNP had taken at least 87% of Green votes, Labour would have been defeated. In practice that's not what would have happened in the real world, so the Green intervention did not cost the SNP victory. But it's now clear that there are some central belt constituencies that the SNP will not win next year unless they can squeeze votes from smaller pro-independence parties, and unless they can persuade disillusioned SNP voters not to stay at home. A few constituencies here or there could make all the difference between retaining the pro-independence majority at Holyrood, and losing it.
The National
03-06-2025
- General
- The National
Nigel Farage's Scottish conspiracy theories fit Reform UK's agenda
The shadowy fingers of this conspiracy first pulled the strings in Aberdeen on Monday, at an event which saw Farage take issue with Scotland's media – and The Herald in particular. They had, the Reform UK leader insisted, been 'involved' with the anti-racism protesters outside his press conference. Farage claimed that Reform UK had only told Scotland's press of the location, so protesters must have found it out through 'one of you'. He doubled-down on this on Tuesday, simultaneously expanding the conspiracy to claim that The Herald colluded with protesters with the 'deliberate intention of trying to provoke violence'. This garbled interpretation of events is transparently intended to whip up hysteria against the media – but it ignores several key facts. READ MORE: Nigel Farage hides from public and press in shambolic by-election campaign visit Firstly, campaign groups such as Stand Up To Racism, which organised the anti-Farage Aberdeen protest, use well-known methods to gather information. Hoping for a leak from the media isn't one of them. Secondly, it can't possibly have only been the media who knew about the location of the Aberdeen press conference. For starters, the venue had to be aware – and Reform had clearly informed a raft of supporters such as the Tory defector Duncan Massey, whose office obviously knew. Then there's the police, who had officers on site. If Reform didn't tell them where to be, who did? I am not aping Farage here and pointing fingers for an imagined leak, but simply highlighting that his so-called evidence for this anti-media conspiracy theory is full of holes. Reform went on to undermine their own shaky claims after protesters also turned out to demonstrate against Farage in Hamilton. Protesters turned out against Nigel Farage in Hamilton on Monday (Image: Jane Barlow/PA) This one saw Farage cower and hide rather than face activists, leaving members of the press waiting in a car park for an event Reform had organised and then surreptitiously cancelled. Speaking to Politico, Farage's allies in Reform UK claimed he had only dodged a 'large-scale protest' which they claimed had been organised by the SNP. So Reform UK's version of events is that the media conspired to see protests meet him in Aberdeen, and the SNP then arranged for protests to greet him in Hamilton. This is perhaps a time to deploy Occam's Razor, which says the simplest explanation is likely the correct one. Is it more likely that the Scottish media, anti-racism campaign groups, and SNP all conspired together to organise protests against Farage wherever he visited in Scotland? Or is it that the Scottish public organically decide to protest against racist populism without the need for some grand puppet-master pulling the strings? READ MORE: Steph Paton: Ash Regan's gaffe has revealed the sorry state of politicians In the world of Reform UK, the establishment stitch-up is the better option, so it is the one they will promote, regardless of the facts. Far-right conspiracies are, after all, well in Farage's wheelhouse. Just look at how Farage's party have campaigned in the Hamilton by-election, using race-baiting adverts and false quotes to try and convince people that Labour MSP Anas Sarwar is more loyal to Pakistan than to Scotland. And it didn't stop there. On Monday, Farage falsely claimed that Sarwar had said: "We are the South Asian community, we are going to take over the country, and take over the world." Let's call that what it is: racially-charged rhetoric calculated to stoke division and distrust. Is it any wonder that a grand conspiracy isn't needed to organise protests against that?
New Statesman
15-05-2025
- Politics
- New Statesman
What's holding Reform back?
Photo by Justin Tallis/AFP National opinion polls are underestimating Reform. The party turned out more voters than pollsters expected in the local elections. And so rather than 25 per cent, we might think Reform could actually be polling 30 percent. If there were a general election today, it would throw the House of Commons into chaos. No two parties would have enough seats to command a majority. Reform would mostly eat into Labour's numbers, but it would stymy a Tory recovery too. Let's say Reform, for argument's sake, is on 30 percent. What is stopping the party from going higher? Ukip had a pretty firm ceiling: poor candidate selection and the spectre of unpalatable prejudice haunted Nigel Farage's first parliamentary endeavour. Even though most voters actually sympathised with the Ukip messaging, the media coverage succeeded in painting the party as extreme. The assumption that similar issues would plague Reform's rise is not a foolish one. Below you can see when and how accusations of prejudice or racism have held parties back. But when More in Common asked voters what's stopping them from going Reform, most do not refer to this so-called spectre of prejudice. The assumption of the candidates being racist is holding back 15 per cent of voters from Reform. The party being too right wing? 17 per cent. Too divisive? Eight per cent. None of these are the primary detractions in the party's numbers, though of course it is not insignificant. Even Labour's efforts at painting the party as privatisers of the NHS turns off just nine per cent of the electorate. See below for the biggest issue in the minds of Reform's untapped voting bloc. Farage's association with Trump is dangerous to his appeal. Labour was reluctant in the Runcorn and Helsby by-election in fully associating the pair. This was a mistake: the Canadian Liberals and Australian Labor benefited from casting their opponents as Trump stooges, or in the very least, allies. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Trump should be used by Labour, and also the Conservatives, as an anti-Farage message. But perhaps this tells us something more interesting than all of that. Shouting 'racist' is not quite the toxifying assault the permanently online may think it is. That attack doesn't speak to Reform-maybes. 'Trump's poodle' would be the killer message; party of racists isn't. [See also: Joan Didion without her style] Related
New European
13-05-2025
- Politics
- New European
Letters: Labour needs to stop apeing Reform and start being positive
This kind of stuff is forgivable only if Labour now finds another tactic to deal with the surge of the far right Reform other than donning Nigel Farage's tweeds, and keeps the far right out of power in the UK. Following Farage means eternally inching towards him as he inches further right; doing this has already left the Conservatives in ruins. I read 'Can Starmer avoid the Farage trap?' by Tom Baldwin (TNE #434) on Sunday night, then awoke the next morning to the sound of a trap's sharp snap and a Labour prime minister saying that Britain 'risks becoming a country of strangers' unless migration is checked. It seems the very strong case for the benefits of migration in a country with an ageing population and a declining birth rate will have to be made by other parties. All opinion polls show British voters in favour of continuing the battle against climate change, and for much closer integration with the EU. Keir Starmer must now stand up and make the positive argument for these as job-creating, economy-boosting policies; otherwise his Labour will stand for nothing. Simone Hartley Bold action to differentiate the Labour party from Reform could include a wealth tax, windfall taxes and acknowledgement that Farage's Brexit has and will continue to impoverish us. I'm no longer a card-carrying member and won't be until Labour becomes Labour again. Catherine Garrett This is a moment of great opportunity for Labour. While they hold office, and given the various crises born of Trump, Starmer could almost certainly negotiate a favourable agreement with the EU that would boost trade and thus tax receipts in short order. The way to go about this is by first getting a series of quiet bilateral agreements-in-principle with EU leaders, and underlining Britain's seriousness by dangling a juicy carrot (while we still have something to dangle). Only then should Starmer announce his intention, admit his mistake, and put an ocean between himself and Farage. RSP Zatzen Labour need to be as anti-Farage as most of us are. Victories in Canada and Australia were down to being vocally against populism. So stop chasing long-gone voters. Seek new voters from progressive, outward-looking people. In other words, dump Morgan McSweeney and Maurice Glasman. Lauren Smith Labour's unpopularity is not about the winter fuel payment. Let's face it, the majority of the wealth in the UK is with older people. Instead, it is about a government that is not bold enough, should be spending not cutting and has been way too cautious for a party that campaigned on change. We knew from the start that Keir Starmer was not a charismatic leader, but he needs to show some flair quickly lest the public turn away. Adam Primhak So how do we stop Nigel Farage? Not by supporting Labour, at least not in Wales where Senedd Cymru elections take place in less than a year. The latest ITV opinion poll confirms that Labour has now sunk to third place behind Plaid Cymru and Reform. Plaid Cymru is a party that has consistently opposed Brexit and is committed to the European Union. Its policies are to the left of Labour. Its long-term goal is to win for Wales the same status as other EU nations. And in Rhun Ap Iorwerth it has a credible and talented candidate for the role of first minister. Plaid Cymru offers the only realistic chance of stopping Reform and the slide towards fascism. Dafydd Williams Sgeti, Abertawe I feel deeply ashamed of my continued membership of the Labour Party. Starmer's (or should I say McSweeney's) Labour government is behaving like an austerity Tory administration. On May 1, I voted for a Labour mayor in North Tyneside because of the success of her retiring predecessor, not because of the party's national behaviour. I am totally unsurprised that she was given a run for her money by the Reform candidate. I shall probably continue to vote Labour on the basis that a bad Labour administration is preferable to a bad Tory one and the thought of lending support to Farage's bunch of thugs is for me an impossibility. David Isaacs I live in County Durham, which elected 65 Reform councillors on May 1. Quite frankly it was an accident waiting to happen. This was a frustrated reaction to years of perceived neglect in a region that has struggled for at least four decades since the collapse of its core industries. Yet pandering to Reform's agenda is not only wrong in principle, it gives them momentum and implies they are the tail wagging the dog. They do not understand why we have high immigration – lack of suitably skilled workers for key jobs for instance – and that merely controlling numbers will achieve nothing. Reform's economic policies are Truss on speed and their culture wars just sow division. Locally, they are threatening the council with auditors. To what end, apart from trying to prove malpractice, of which there is little evidence? Their silly war on DEI has already come up against reality. They have limited local powers on environmental matters, and cutting local expenditure when councils have struggled for years due to austerity will blow up in everyone's faces. Mainstream parties would be wise to confront them and construct credible policies that address the most urgent issues of the day. Reform gaining local office will gradually unravel, as they are shown up as inadequate for the complex tasks we all face. David Rolfe Labour seem to hope that in four-and-a-bit years' time they will be rewarded by red wall voters because they didn't try to rejoin the EU, tax the wealthy or bring in PR to blunt Reform's electoral chances. If they think that it is a strategy that will work, then they are fools. Mark Grahame Imitating Reform will never get Labour anywhere. Reform voters will vote for the original rather than a pale copy. Labour has to be courageously supportive of the downtrodden, whether British or not, courageously left wing, courageously itself. Only then will voters have a real choice. Jessica Gaines Some perspective is needed on the May 1 elections. It is a bit early to be talking about the collapse of the two main parties after one local election where Reform won a few hundred seats. Labour have almost 10 times more council seats and a parliamentary majority with over four years until the next general election. A warning shot perhaps, but this talk is all hysteria and hyperbole. Jack Millard One nation, one party After reading Patience Wheatcroft's 'Labour's next nightmare could be a non-dom U-turn' (TNE #434), I've come up with an idea. Labour can reverse their plans on taxing non-doms and on private school VAT, and they can scrap net zero. Then their politics will be identical to the Tories. They can merge and both can become the largest party again! Jonathan Porteous When I moved to France to retire (not in a chateau, simply a rented two-bedroom flat), I didn't get to choose where I'd be taxed. There were rules which dictated that, once I'd been here six months, I'd be taxed here (and had to send a document to the UK tax office to avoid being taxed twice). Why should there be ANY different regime for some people, just because they're rich? Tony Jones It's not Gen Z's fault In 'The war on law' (TNE #434), Matthew d'Ancona repeated the claim that 52% of Gen Z believe that the UK would be better 'with a strong leader in charge, who did not have to bother with parliament and elections'. Channel 4, who made the original claim, have never published the questionnaire on which this is based, nor the data. When the Policy Institute at King's College London sought to replicate it, they found 6%, not 52%, holding these views, and no authoritative source, including the British Election Study, has confirmed the Channel 4 claim. However, the King's study did find that Gen Z (as defined by Channel 4) had lower levels of confidence in a range of institutions. Young people, like many of us, are frustrated by the state of Britain and impatient at the time involved in putting things right. But that does not make them supporters of a dictatorship. Stephen McNair Coltishall, Norfolk Don't get mad Tim Bradford's strip in TNE #434 promotes the same misconceptions as the musical Hamilton, beginning, 'In the 1770s, Americans fought for liberty against a mad tyrant'. Monty Python refuted this timing brilliantly in 'The Golden Age of Ballooning', as George III where Graham Chapman complains 'I don't go mad till 1800!'' The issue of mental capacities apart, Britain had had a constitutional monarchy and bill of rights since accepting William III nearly a century earlier – not that people in the country at various levels of power hadn't been trying to get round such obstacles ever since then. But it wasn't possible for a Georgian king to be either a tyrant or an absolute monarch, no matter how much he might have wanted to be. Bryn Hughes Wrexham, North Wales Best of British After reading the latest splendid Dilettante column by Marie Le Conte on slowly becoming British (TNE #434), some humble suggestions. Firstly, I have found using the phrase 'mustn't grumble' more than useful over the last 60-odd years. Next, Marie should try watching the peerless TV series, Dad's Army, along with the films and the recent remakes in order to be able to quote those inimitable and timeless lines. Turning to tea, undoubtedly close to the pinnacle of Britishness, when I lived in Montreuil-sur-Mer a lovely neighbour told me that the French like Earl Grey tea as it has some bite. Hope Marie enjoys it! Robert Boston Kingshill, Kent Telling it like it is Congratulations on Svetlana Lazareva's article 'The Iranian execution machine' (Carousel, TNE #433). Most articles on the regime either don't mention or misrepresent the National Council of Resistance of Iran. A parliament in exile is an exact description of it. Carolyn Beckingham Lewes, East Sussex Capital gains Quipping about the lateness of London buses when waiting for a response from the mayor's office in the capital (Rats in a Sack, TNE #433) will ring hollow with any readers who, like me, live in the north but visit London regularly. If buses in Cheshire ran even 20 per cent as well as those in zone 4 and 5 in London, we'd be cheering from the rooftops. Catriona Stewart Northwich, Cheshire BELOW THE LINE Comments, conversation and correspondence from our online subscribers Re: Rats in a Sack on Reform advertising work-from-home roles while telling staff at the new councils that they must work from the office. (TNE #434). Where does all this leave its leader Nigel Farage? He rarely turns up to the Westminster office and doesn't work from his Clacton home either! Ken Broughton So Arron Banks has lost out on becoming the west of England mayor after admitting he didn't understand what the role entailed and wanted to do it from his chateau (Rats in a Sack TNE #434). At last, a Reform politician who actually tells the truth! Christopher Harrison Re: Josh Barrie on the new greasy spoons (TNE #434). There is an old truism: you are offered a last breakfast before you are shot. Who is going to go for the healthy option as against a full English? John Tanzer Re: 'Trump's war on language' by Peter Trudgill (TNE #434). If Donald has his way, the official language of the USA will soon be Pointing And Grunting. Geoff Stevenson Re: 'Plato and the piano' by Emily Herring (TNE #434). Right on! At the age of 86 I picked up where I had left off 70 years before and got a qualified piano tutor. Brahms and Chopin wouldn't care too much what I do to their music. But if I sit down for a spare 10 minutes at the piano I generally find it out turns out to be a good hour before I check how long I've been at it. John Churchill Re: 'What the hell happened to the bloke from Coast?' (TNE #433). To be fair to Neil Oliver, the writer Owen Jones is making a very good job of monetising the far left viewpoint. Crackpot views pay healthily on both sides of the political divide, it would seem. Michael McKeown Re: 'Jesus of Madrid' (TNE #433). One of the reasons I love the New European (apart from its news and analysis) is articles like this! I'd never heard of Camilo Sesto, but the story of him bringing Jesus Christ Superstar to Franco's Spain is remarkable, and something I'd never have heard about otherwise. Worth the subscription alone! Brilliant! Richard Debonnaire JOIN THE CONVERSATION Subscribe and download our free new app to comment and chat with our writers
