Thursday, 9 April 2015

Most influential political voices in Britain

Telegraph Hill’s Truescore tool looked at the online and offline presence of 800 political voices, including MPs, broadcasters and activists, to arrive at its list of the most influential political people in Britain.

They are:

1. David Cameron

2. Russell Brand

3. Boris Johnson

4. Ed Miliband

5. Nicola Sturgeon

6. Nick Clegg

7. Jon Snow

8. Owen Jones

9. Nigel Farage

10. David Miliband

This doesn't indicate popularity. It does, though, indicate how much people are being talked about.

It's not surprising then that the prime minister is at the top of the list. At least at present, for good or ill, he's the man at the head of the UK government. 

Fascinating though, that in second place we have Russell Brand, who is advocating a whole new politics, but is, after all, really a comedian, actor and chat show host.

It's probably pretty impressive that the First Minister makes it to number 5 in the UK, given that her remit only covers less than a tenth of the population. She must be making people think and tweet in other countries of the union.

I can imagine why the minority figure of Nigel Farage has made it into the chart, on controversy interest, but it's beyond my comprehension why David Miliband would make it into the top 100, never mind top ten, given that he gave up his seat in parliament and let his constituents down to take a highly paid job in New York, when his brother beat him to be Labour leader. He's not even mildly interesting.

A wee suggestion for David, given his politics: Cameron has said he will only go on for the next few years, so there will be a vacancy in the Tory party. He should apply to lead it. He's more suited to the job. And he can take his right wing mate Murphy with him.

Hearty congratulations to Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, for being remembered by anyone besides his friends and family.


  1. Well David Milband is at International Rescue now and the Thunderbirds have been revamped on ITV (shown last Saturday) so maybe that's put him back on the agenda :-)

    FAB. Off Tracey Island

    1. LOL...

      Is that the one with the voice of the Mysterons?

      Captain Scarlet at your service...


    2. I thought he was a Muppet.

    3. Nah, the Muppets were cute.

  2. I'm sure it's just a mistake in translation doesn't everyone say David err err Ed

  3. Replies
    1. Just making sure your name fits ... lol ... but you do have a point ;)

    2. Hmmmm

      You DO have a point. Maybe Willie Rennie tweets a lot?

  4. Scary that Bojo is at third ....

    But, My BIG QUESTION is ... who's nicked Nicola's camera?

    1. Well, as I said, it's not that they are popular, it's just that lots of people are talking about them. it could be that they are saying "bloody idiot"... but in fairness that might be true of all of them.

      He camera wore out from all the selfies...

    2. It's the invisible strings, from the Red Ed marionette.

      Sorry, couldn't resist.

    3. No point in resisting... It's not good for you!!!

      This is off topic but I just read it and wanted to share it...

      It's from a student who was a contemporary of (part of) Murphy's academic career... Hilarious.

      As someone who knew Jim Murphy in my student days at Strathclyde University (from where, unlike Murphy, I actually graduated), I feel that I should bring a little balance to the portrayals of him.

      You might think he's just an unprincipled, self-seeking, corrupt, ultra-Blairite, crypto-Tory, warmongering, pro-market, virulently pro-Zionist, Unionist/British nationalist scumbag, but that really would be a bit unfair.

      He's also a cynical, back-stabbing, sell-yer-granny, Stalinoid machine politician with all the personal warmth of a dead eel and all the charisma of a table leg.

      Hope that helps.

    4. Hahahaha.......(I don't do text short hand, apart from ffs, for politeness)

  5. It seems that the debates have done the SNP no harm at all.

    BREAKING: New poll for the Times by Yougov has:

    SNP 49% (+3)
    Lab 25% (-4)
    Con 18% (+2)
    LD 4% (+1)

    1. YouGov / Times: Of those who watched / followed Tuesday's debate, who won:

      56% Sturgeon
      14% Davidson
      13% Murphy
      1% Rennie

    2. Oooopsw.....

  6. Exclusive interview: Alex Salmond on Scottish independence and the General Election

    Former first minister Alex Salmond speaks to Michael Gray from about the independence referendum, the General Election, and a range of other political issues.

  7. I hope this works, I have a subscription to the FT and am thus not subjet to their paywall. However copying and pasting, I have no idea whether it will work or not. Antwat:

    The Scottish National party could, after all, wield power in an independent state. It just happens to be the state from which it wants to secede. Less than a year after the referendum in which Scots voted against independence, the SNP is projected to win more than 40 of Scotland’s 59 seats at the British general election. Such a bloc would make it the most formidable nationalist group since Charles Parnell’s Irish Parliamentary party of the 1880s. And since neither the Conservative nor the Labour party is forecast to win an overall majority at the polls on May 7, the new SNP MPs could be the most troublesome Westminster Scots since the Lords who took the then nascent union to within four votes of dissolution in 1713.

    In Scotland, the referendum is only over in an official sense. The union victory in September’s vote has turned into an ersatz triumph for the nationalists. Try as it might, Labour cannot shift the frame of the election away from that of the referendum. In this sense, Scottish politics is more and more Northern Irish in character: all other policy issues are subordinate to those constitutional. Following the referendum, the two sides increasingly resemble tribes, complete with their own imaginaries, preferred media and versions of contemporary history.

    This tribalism is more pronounced among those Scots who voted Yes in September. The “45” – the self-description given by thwarted “Yessers” after their share of the electorate – feels betrayed. Although data from the Scottish Social Attitudes survey show that No voters rejected independence for reasons of British identity or economic self-interest, the central narrative of the Yes side is that Scotland was somehow duped. At best, this means believing the falsehood that the union was saved by “the Vow” of more devolution, signed just before the referendum by David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband. At worse, this means believing conspiracy theories; last month a think tank head alleged that MI5 encouraged the No vote.

    I leave it to others to analyse this.

    1. Douglas

      The problem with these articles is that the 45 are often put across as tribal nationalists and nutters. They always fail to point out that many voted for YES because they want change and believe that our system of government serves the very few at the cost of the many. And they wonder why so many are not giving up anymore or going back in their box.


    2. That'll be the FT, trying to rewrite history, then. Not only are the "45", feeling betrayed but, a sizable amount of no voters are too. The vow, so easily, brushed aside in the article, promised real powers for Scotland. Not the ability to change traffic signs, and useless tax varying powers.
      We know the referendum was lost but, they, the FT and other unionist organisations, are still fighting it.
      To compare Scottish politics, with Northern Ireland is risible, unless you are referring to certain football clubs and all that shite.

  8. Sorry about the spelling errors in my commentary. Hopefully our 'tribe' will get past that ;-(

  9. here was my somewhat belated response. I blame my keyboard rather than my brain for the spelling errors both here and before. But I would say that wouldn't I?

    Fasccinating that John McDermott should use an imperialist expression about his northern fellow citizens. It is beyond insult for a presumeably well paid member of the metropolitan elite to describe current Scottish politics as "tribal". This anthropological approach to journalism does him no favours as the serious journalist he is. Does he expect us to be getting the spears out next?

    If there is a better example of London centricity to be found in the national broadsheets, as opposed to the comic book tabloids, it would be hard to comprehend just how far away our journalist is from what is going on in Scotland. Indeed, if there were 'Two Tribes' going to war, which there just isn't, he has joined the apathetic and unengaged one.

    For the interesting thing that has happened is that people, voters dare I say it, have become engaged as never before. When one presumption, such as the charm of the unity of the UK becomes a subject on the streets, a lot of other assumptions become less persuasive too. This might not sit comfortably with London, but it is none the less true.

    1. I think you pretty well summed it up, Douglas, Bruce, Jim.

      An Ashcroft poll on the day after the referendum showed that enough people had been convinced by the word of the prime minister, deputy prime minister, leader of HM official opposition and an ex prime minister to change the vote from Yes to No. One poll does not give us an unquestionable solution, but Ashcroft's polls tend to be more reliable than most others because of the numbers he polls, unheeding of the cost, as he is able to be.

      It seems to me that no political movement simply stops because it suffers one defeat. The Liberals will, I am sure, still favour and fight for PR in elections. Despite being rejected at most elections, UKIP continues to operate.

      A joeyed referendum on independence was unlikely to stop people who believe in self rule believing in self rule.

      I say joeyed because a vow was made and then almost immediately broken by Cameron with his EVEL plans, which immediately put the Labour Party against the Scottish devo plus they had just vowed. The idea that they would lose power in England even if they had power in the UK was a step far too far for them. Cameron had lied and duped them, and Gordon Brown had been a patsy.

      The Smith Commission was a joke. It had a few weeks to read tens of thousands of detailed submissions. Someone worked out that if it worked 8 hours a day, it would have 10 seconds for each submission.

      It reported not to Scotland, but to the London cabinet. Iain Duncan Smith and Tessy May put objections in and Smith had to remove what offended them. Then it faced the wrath of the House of Lords steeped in the 19th century. Scottish lords saw their titles and £300 a day disappearing.

      Nicola Sturgeon has moved on though. She has accepted the result. She just wants to see us get devo-super plus as guaranteed by Brown.

      That she will not rule out another referendum is hardly surprising. Firstly because the SNP's end goal always will be independence. Secondly because as Nicola says over and over again, it is not she who will demand another referendum or not... it is the Scottish people, at a ballot box.

      The comments about NI politics show that the writer doesn't understand either NI or Scotland. That we have our own preferred source of information is hardly surprising. Do not conservatives have the Telegraph and Labour have the Guardian? Do not the middle and working classes have different publications? What is so strange that we should have the National, or Wings or Bella to put out point of view whilst the unionists have their press and blogs? Surely that is a natural thing. or would they prefer that we all read the Telegraph?

      That there is Secret Service involvement is hardly surprising. I would find it odd were there not. The rules on Civil Service neutrality and Royal neutrality were torn up, why wouldn't they get the spooks in. They used them to cover up top people's sexual predications, why not independence movements?

      It seems that from what I read of the debates, the unionist parties continued to try to relive the referendum campaign. Not Nicola or Patrick.

      The article itself seems to be good enough reason for us to have people writing on the subject who actually know something about it.

      This guy sounds a bit like me trying to write about the situation in Hungary!

  10. Brand is a hypocrite of the first order. Most people - and include every single party leader - involved in politics are. Why people think he is influential beats me. The only ones on there who I think have any real influence are Boris, Nicola and Nigel (believe it or not). However, they are still all hypocrites.

    Milliband 1 & 2 I don't rate, and as for Clegg the biggest influence he has is persuading people to vote anyone else but Lib Dem. I bet the Monster Raving Loony Party (no, not UKIP) will poll more votes somewhere.

    Tris, while I agree with your comment about some of the unionists stirring up the referendum, so are some of the nationalists. As for Patrick Harvie and the rest of the Greens, the SNP need to distance themselves rapidly. Most of their policies are at odds with the SNP in my view. The SNP don't need them. Find for Referendums, but not for parliamentary elections.