So the premise of my previous post turned out to be wrong, although in fairness to myself that was only because Robert Peston’s sources proved to be wrong. Keir Starmer and Labour will in fact not support the SNP motion calling for an immediate ceasefire, and will instead once again abstain unless their own amendment is passed, which would remove the call for Israel to stop the collective punishment of Palestinians, and would render the call for an immediate ceasefire rather hollow by adding an absurd line about Israel having the right to carry on with the violence if Hamas don’t stop. There’s also a statement about Israel having the right to be free of any threat of a repeat of 7th October, but notably not a trace of any balancing language about the Palestinians having the right to be free of any repeat of the events since 7th October, or about Palestinians having the right to carry on with the violence if Israel don’t stop attacking them. I trust the SNP will not be remotely tempted to “compromise” on such an outrageous basis.
Peston was wrong: Labour MPs will yet again be whipped to abstain if the SNP’s ceasefire motion goes to a vote
Much will now depend on whether the amendment passes, because if it does, there will be no proper vote on the actual text of the SNP motion, merely on the motion as amended. That would be a very frustrating outcome, although from my vague recollection of Commons procedure, there may be a chance the Labour amendment won’t even be selected by the Speaker – sometimes one amendment is selected and that’s a government amendment, so the Tories may determine what happens. If the Labour amendment does pass, it’s really important that the SNP win the battle of competing narratives and make it abundantly clear that Labour weaseled out of a meaningful call for an unconditional stop to the violence.
Luke Akehurst of “Labour for Likud” will still be fuming regardless of what happens, though, because even the Labour amendment uses antisemitic language like “ceasefire” and “immediate”.
* * *
On this blog and on pretty much any blog where opinion polling is discussed, the subject of the famous Yes Minister scene about polling will inevitably come up from time to time, because it’s such a compelling demonstration of how poll results can be manipulated. Sir Humphrey uses Bernard as “the perfect balanced sample” to show how the same respondents will both support and oppose the reintroduction of National Service, depending on how they’ve just been primed by three preceding leading questions. As a bit of fun, Ipsos have just polled two Britain-wide samples using Sir Humphrey’s exact questions to see if he was right, and what’s fascinating is that they very nearly proved him wrong. It would have been a bit irritating if they had done, because the beloved scene would have seemed somewhat tarnished as a result!
By a narrow margin of 45% to 38%, Britons support National Service after being led along the positive question sequence, and oppose National Service by 48% to 34% after being led along the negative question sequence. So Sir Humphrey was right, but only just, and it turns out that impressively high numbers of respondents are resistant to leading question wording. They must have a stronger sense of self than Bernard Woolley.
Copyright © 2017 JNews.