Almost midnight and people are still trying to vote here in Poland. Huge mobilization, big turnout, some polling stations ran out of ballots and exit polls show an opposition coalition wins. But it's still early.... https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1713672823472861325
Have any actual votes been counted?
No idea - but final results not expected until Tuesday.
Almost midnight and people are still trying to vote here in Poland. Huge mobilization, big turnout, some polling stations ran out of ballots and exit polls show an opposition coalition wins. But it's still early.... https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1713672823472861325
Have any actual votes been counted?
Counted, hopefully yes - but declared, only some overseas results, as far as I know.
It doesn't tell us anything new to be honest. We know Starmer is not as wildly popular as Blair was in 1995-97. To be fair to Starmer, Blair is a hard act to follow and had there been no Blair (with all the cynicism the period produced), I think Starmer would be much more popular.
As New Zealand showed yesterday, it's quite possible for an opposition to win solely because the incumbent Government has become so unpopular and the swing achieved by Luxon isn't far off what the polls are predicting Starmer will get.
I though the lack of Tactical Voting interesting, though not sure how an MRP shows it.
We'll see what happens when the election is called - it may be the legacy of the coalition (which ended eight and a half years ago) makes it hard for some Labour inclined to consider voting LD. There's also the truth there aren't that many seats where the LDs are the main challenger compared to the number where Labour is the challenger.
It's also been historically the case Labour voters are more willing to vote LD than LD voters are to voter Labour.
The moronic activities of the Libs in Mid Beds won’t help. Hubris, idiocy and arrogance rolled into one.
Sigh. Talk about entitlement. The LDs have every right to fight this, particularly as Labour came very late to the party.
No. It’s a hubristic move that will backfire. I’m green on the Tories and confident I’ll be collecting my winnings.
Maybe then Labour should have put some effort in at the beginning rather than joining late and just expecting the LDs to hand over all their weeks of effort to Labour. That is the real arrogance.
Maybe so. I’ve been hugely critical of both parties - said several times on here that they both deserve to lose given the hubristic manner in which this race has been mismanaged.
It doesn't tell us anything new to be honest. We know Starmer is not as wildly popular as Blair was in 1995-97. To be fair to Starmer, Blair is a hard act to follow and had there been no Blair (with all the cynicism the period produced), I think Starmer would be much more popular.
As New Zealand showed yesterday, it's quite possible for an opposition to win solely because the incumbent Government has become so unpopular and the swing achieved by Luxon isn't far off what the polls are predicting Starmer will get.
I though the lack of Tactical Voting interesting, though not sure how an MRP shows it.
We'll see what happens when the election is called - it may be the legacy of the coalition (which ended eight and a half years ago) makes it hard for some Labour inclined to consider voting LD. There's also the truth there aren't that many seats where the LDs are the main challenger compared to the number where Labour is the challenger.
It's also been historically the case Labour voters are more willing to vote LD than LD voters are to voter Labour.
The moronic activities of the Libs in Mid Beds won’t help. Hubris, idiocy and arrogance rolled into one.
Sigh. Talk about entitlement. The LDs have every right to fight this, particularly as Labour came very late to the party.
No. It’s a hubristic move that will backfire. I’m green on the Tories and confident I’ll be collecting my winnings.
Maybe then Labour should have put some effort in at the beginning rather than joining late and just expecting the LDs to hand over all their weeks of effort to Labour. That is the real arrogance.
Personally I think Labour will win (no reason, just gut). But its weird how even supporters of the particular parties can sometimes act like they forget they are distinct entities, not simply desiring them to work together (or at least not undercut each other), but expecting them to.
I know that ideological differences between parties is not as great as they would like to pretend most of the time, and certainly not as much as their activists like to claim, but if there's no alliance in place then parties are separated for a reason, and that includes to compete against each other.
If their only purpose was to back each other what would even be the point of them both?
Gosh. Poland. Is something finally actually going to come right in this benighted year?
If it is, will PiS go quietly? It's become a genuine question whether parties and individuals in what were established democracies will do that now, which is yet another sign democracy is really struggling globally.
It doesn't tell us anything new to be honest. We know Starmer is not as wildly popular as Blair was in 1995-97. To be fair to Starmer, Blair is a hard act to follow and had there been no Blair (with all the cynicism the period produced), I think Starmer would be much more popular.
As New Zealand showed yesterday, it's quite possible for an opposition to win solely because the incumbent Government has become so unpopular and the swing achieved by Luxon isn't far off what the polls are predicting Starmer will get.
I though the lack of Tactical Voting interesting, though not sure how an MRP shows it.
We'll see what happens when the election is called - it may be the legacy of the coalition (which ended eight and a half years ago) makes it hard for some Labour inclined to consider voting LD. There's also the truth there aren't that many seats where the LDs are the main challenger compared to the number where Labour is the challenger.
It's also been historically the case Labour voters are more willing to vote LD than LD voters are to voter Labour.
The moronic activities of the Libs in Mid Beds won’t help. Hubris, idiocy and arrogance rolled into one.
Sigh. Talk about entitlement. The LDs have every right to fight this, particularly as Labour came very late to the party.
No. It’s a hubristic move that will backfire. I’m green on the Tories and confident I’ll be collecting my winnings.
Maybe then Labour should have put some effort in at the beginning rather than joining late and just expecting the LDs to hand over all their weeks of effort to Labour. That is the real arrogance.
Personally I think Labour will win (no reason, just gut). But its weird how even supporters of the particular parties can sometimes act like they forget they are distinct entities, not simply desiring them to work together (or at least not undercut each other), but expecting them to.
I know that ideological differences between parties is not as great as they would like to pretend most of the time, and certainly not as much as their activists like to claim, but if there's no alliance in place then parties are separated for a reason, and that includes to compete against each other.
If there only purpose was to back each other what would even be the point of them both?
They can compete but not when it’s outside both of their interests to do so. Game theory says do what your main opponent least wants you to do. That opponent is the Tories, in this seat. And what they don’t want is for one of their competitors to concede to the other, so that is exactly what their competitors should do. Sadly the Libs a) didn’t get the memo, b) don’t grasp game theory, or c) are stupid; one or more of the above.
Gosh. Poland. Is something finally actually going to come right in this benighted year?
If it is, will PiS go quietly? It's become a genuine question whether parties and individuals in what were established democracies will do that now, which is yet another sign democracy is really struggling globally.
Democracy definitely on the back foot. How laughable the 'end of history' nonsense seems now.
Gosh. Poland. Is something finally actually going to come right in this benighted year?
If it is, will PiS go quietly? It's become a genuine question whether parties and individuals in what were established democracies will do that now, which is yet another sign democracy is really struggling globally.
Democracy definitely on the back foot. How laughable the 'end of history' nonsense seems now.
Eh? Are we now condemning global democracy based on a coup d’etat in Poland that hasn’t happened?
It doesn't tell us anything new to be honest. We know Starmer is not as wildly popular as Blair was in 1995-97. To be fair to Starmer, Blair is a hard act to follow and had there been no Blair (with all the cynicism the period produced), I think Starmer would be much more popular.
As New Zealand showed yesterday, it's quite possible for an opposition to win solely because the incumbent Government has become so unpopular and the swing achieved by Luxon isn't far off what the polls are predicting Starmer will get.
I though the lack of Tactical Voting interesting, though not sure how an MRP shows it.
We'll see what happens when the election is called - it may be the legacy of the coalition (which ended eight and a half years ago) makes it hard for some Labour inclined to consider voting LD. There's also the truth there aren't that many seats where the LDs are the main challenger compared to the number where Labour is the challenger.
It's also been historically the case Labour voters are more willing to vote LD than LD voters are to voter Labour.
The moronic activities of the Libs in Mid Beds won’t help. Hubris, idiocy and arrogance rolled into one.
Sigh. Talk about entitlement. The LDs have every right to fight this, particularly as Labour came very late to the party.
No. It’s a hubristic move that will backfire. I’m green on the Tories and confident I’ll be collecting my winnings.
Maybe then Labour should have put some effort in at the beginning rather than joining late and just expecting the LDs to hand over all their weeks of effort to Labour. That is the real arrogance.
Personally I think Labour will win (no reason, just gut). But its weird how even supporters of the particular parties can sometimes act like they forget they are distinct entities, not simply desiring them to work together (or at least not undercut each other), but expecting them to.
I know that ideological differences between parties is not as great as they would like to pretend most of the time, and certainly not as much as their activists like to claim, but if there's no alliance in place then parties are separated for a reason, and that includes to compete against each other.
If there only purpose was to back each other what would even be the point of them both?
They can compete but not when it’s outside both of their interests to do so. Game theory says do what your main opponent least wants you to do. That opponent is the Tories, in this seat. And what they don’t want is for one of their competitors to concede to the other, so that is exactly what their competitors should do. Sadly the Libs a) didn’t get the memo, b) don’t grasp game theory, or c) are stupid, one or more of the above.
Politics is messy, not some ideal game theory approach. Your premise that the LDs were stupid in not conceding has been pointed out several times to be unfair given they have demonstrably won from similar positions in the recent past. It was a more challenging target for them even than those, but it showed that it was potentially in reach.
In which case the calculation about what was in their best interest is far from as obvious as you paint it as - the exact same bemoaning of the LDs took place in those other seats, yet they were right to fight. Will they fall short here? Quite possibly, it might have been the wrong call in this case. But it is not the obvious game theory calculation you suggest it is.
What about intangible benefits of being seen to fight competitively rather than just concede an area to a secondary opponent, with the implication of writing off a whole bunch of other areas? In the area where I live your approach would see the LDs make no effort for parliamentary as they are third, yet in local councils Labour are non-existent next to LDs - if they stopped trying because it might benefit the main opponent, it could have the effect of undermining their strong local position.
I have had conversations with charity collectors which represented the treatment of diseases I was extremely eager to contribute money to, but could not because I refuse to transfer money online. I even offered to just give them a tenner just for being good people, but they refused to take it. It's bloody annoying.
Refusing to take cash donations is ridiculous.
Why? Handling cash is expensive, time consuming and risky. Most people don’t bother with the stuff. Why should businesses/charities accept it? It’s a complete pain in the arse to handle. And pointless. Just use contactless. Easy.
I used cash in my local Aldi and the corner shop today
It doesn't tell us anything new to be honest. We know Starmer is not as wildly popular as Blair was in 1995-97. To be fair to Starmer, Blair is a hard act to follow and had there been no Blair (with all the cynicism the period produced), I think Starmer would be much more popular.
As New Zealand showed yesterday, it's quite possible for an opposition to win solely because the incumbent Government has become so unpopular and the swing achieved by Luxon isn't far off what the polls are predicting Starmer will get.
I though the lack of Tactical Voting interesting, though not sure how an MRP shows it.
We'll see what happens when the election is called - it may be the legacy of the coalition (which ended eight and a half years ago) makes it hard for some Labour inclined to consider voting LD. There's also the truth there aren't that many seats where the LDs are the main challenger compared to the number where Labour is the challenger.
It's also been historically the case Labour voters are more willing to vote LD than LD voters are to voter Labour.
The moronic activities of the Libs in Mid Beds won’t help. Hubris, idiocy and arrogance rolled into one.
Sigh. Talk about entitlement. The LDs have every right to fight this, particularly as Labour came very late to the party.
No. It’s a hubristic move that will backfire. I’m green on the Tories and confident I’ll be collecting my winnings.
Maybe then Labour should have put some effort in at the beginning rather than joining late and just expecting the LDs to hand over all their weeks of effort to Labour. That is the real arrogance.
Personally I think Labour will win (no reason, just gut). But its weird how even supporters of the particular parties can sometimes act like they forget they are distinct entities, not simply desiring them to work together (or at least not undercut each other), but expecting them to.
I know that ideological differences between parties is not as great as they would like to pretend most of the time, and certainly not as much as their activists like to claim, but if there's no alliance in place then parties are separated for a reason, and that includes to compete against each other.
If there only purpose was to back each other what would even be the point of them both?
They can compete but not when it’s outside both of their interests to do so. Game theory says do what your main opponent least wants you to do. That opponent is the Tories, in this seat. And what they don’t want is for one of their competitors to concede to the other, so that is exactly what their competitors should do. Sadly the Libs a) didn’t get the memo, b) don’t grasp game theory, or c) are stupid, one or more of the above.
Politics is messy, not some ideal game theory approach. Your premise that the LDs were stupid in not conceding has been pointed out several times to be unfair given they have demonstrably won from similar positions in the recent past. It was a more challenging target for them even than those, but it showed that it was potentially in reach.
In which case the calculation about what was in their best interest is far from as obvious as you paint it as - the exact same bemoaning of the LDs took place in those other seats, yet they were right to fight. Will they fall short here? Quite possibly, it might have been the wrong call in this case. But it is not the obvious game theory calculation you suggest it is.
What about intangible benefits of being seen to fight competitively rather than just concede an area to a secondary opponent, with the implication of writing off a whole bunch of other areas? In the area where I live your approach would see the LDs make no effort for parliamentary as they are third, yet in local councils Labour are non-existent next to LDs - if they stopped trying because it might benefit the main opponent, it could have the effect of undermining their strong local position.
You are overthinking it.
What’s the best way of the government losing the seat?
a) coalesce around the best-placed challenger b) challengers fight among themselves
I’m going to bed. You can send me your answer in the morning.
Gosh. Poland. Is something finally actually going to come right in this benighted year?
If it is, will PiS go quietly? It's become a genuine question whether parties and individuals in what were established democracies will do that now, which is yet another sign democracy is really struggling globally.
The Supreme Court has been packed with PiS supporters and they could annul the election under some dubious reasons and order a re-run .
It would of course result in huge civil unrest so let’s hope things don’t turn ugly .
Until the results start coming out properly then we just don’t know if the exit polls are close to the mark . We need a clear majority for the opposition to make any attempts to sow doubt less likely to gain traction.
I have had conversations with charity collectors which represented the treatment of diseases I was extremely eager to contribute money to, but could not because I refuse to transfer money online. I even offered to just give them a tenner just for being good people, but they refused to take it. It's bloody annoying.
Refusing to take cash donations is ridiculous.
Why? Handling cash is expensive, time consuming and risky. Most people don’t bother with the stuff. Why should businesses/charities accept it? It’s a complete pain in the arse to handle. And pointless. Just use contactless. Easy.
I used cash in my local Aldi and the corner shop today
Gosh. Poland. Is something finally actually going to come right in this benighted year?
If it is, will PiS go quietly? It's become a genuine question whether parties and individuals in what were established democracies will do that now, which is yet another sign democracy is really struggling globally.
Democracy definitely on the back foot. How laughable the 'end of history' nonsense seems now.
Eh? Are we now condemning global democracy based on a coup d’etat in Poland that hasn’t happened?
No. It's well established full democracies are a minority on the global stage, that's not a new observation. And we've seen some established ones, like the USA, face violence and legalistic attempts to thwart elections and in Poland there have been accusations that PiS have engaged in some shady stuff in the last few years re law and justice, if nothing like as bad as the USA.
An attempt to stay in power even if they've lost would be a sign of a further deteriorating situation re global democracy. No attempt to do so would be a positive sign that at least in Poland it is not deteriorating. That shouldn't need celebrating, but it would be.
It doesn't tell us anything new to be honest. We know Starmer is not as wildly popular as Blair was in 1995-97. To be fair to Starmer, Blair is a hard act to follow and had there been no Blair (with all the cynicism the period produced), I think Starmer would be much more popular.
As New Zealand showed yesterday, it's quite possible for an opposition to win solely because the incumbent Government has become so unpopular and the swing achieved by Luxon isn't far off what the polls are predicting Starmer will get.
I though the lack of Tactical Voting interesting, though not sure how an MRP shows it.
We'll see what happens when the election is called - it may be the legacy of the coalition (which ended eight and a half years ago) makes it hard for some Labour inclined to consider voting LD. There's also the truth there aren't that many seats where the LDs are the main challenger compared to the number where Labour is the challenger.
It's also been historically the case Labour voters are more willing to vote LD than LD voters are to voter Labour.
The moronic activities of the Libs in Mid Beds won’t help. Hubris, idiocy and arrogance rolled into one.
Sigh. Talk about entitlement. The LDs have every right to fight this, particularly as Labour came very late to the party.
No. It’s a hubristic move that will backfire. I’m green on the Tories and confident I’ll be collecting my winnings.
Maybe then Labour should have put some effort in at the beginning rather than joining late and just expecting the LDs to hand over all their weeks of effort to Labour. That is the real arrogance.
Personally I think Labour will win (no reason, just gut). But its weird how even supporters of the particular parties can sometimes act like they forget they are distinct entities, not simply desiring them to work together (or at least not undercut each other), but expecting them to.
I know that ideological differences between parties is not as great as they would like to pretend most of the time, and certainly not as much as their activists like to claim, but if there's no alliance in place then parties are separated for a reason, and that includes to compete against each other.
If there only purpose was to back each other what would even be the point of them both?
They can compete but not when it’s outside both of their interests to do so. Game theory says do what your main opponent least wants you to do. That opponent is the Tories, in this seat. And what they don’t want is for one of their competitors to concede to the other, so that is exactly what their competitors should do. Sadly the Libs a) didn’t get the memo, b) don’t grasp game theory, or c) are stupid, one or more of the above.
Politics is messy, not some ideal game theory approach. Your premise that the LDs were stupid in not conceding has been pointed out several times to be unfair given they have demonstrably won from similar positions in the recent past. It was a more challenging target for them even than those, but it showed that it was potentially in reach.
In which case the calculation about what was in their best interest is far from as obvious as you paint it as - the exact same bemoaning of the LDs took place in those other seats, yet they were right to fight. Will they fall short here? Quite possibly, it might have been the wrong call in this case. But it is not the obvious game theory calculation you suggest it is.
What about intangible benefits of being seen to fight competitively rather than just concede an area to a secondary opponent, with the implication of writing off a whole bunch of other areas? In the area where I live your approach would see the LDs make no effort for parliamentary as they are third, yet in local councils Labour are non-existent next to LDs - if they stopped trying because it might benefit the main opponent, it could have the effect of undermining their strong local position.
You are overthinking it.
What’s the best way of the government losing the seat?
a) coalesce around the best-placed challenger b) challengers fight among themselves
I’m going to bed. You can send me your answer in the morning.
I disagree I am overthinking it. I think you are starting from a faulty premise, which is placing unfair judgement on political parties for acting like, well, political parties.
Your position appears to be that politics is entirely binary, and therefore every party has an obligation to co-operate in some fashion in service of the immediate goal of defeating the government.
They don't. I'm sure they'd all like that outcome, but they do have wider goals than a single by-election. They have their long term prospects to think about, their ideologies, the very reasons they exist as separate entities.
By your logic we should only have a single unity candidate at every by-election against a government incumbent since no one should stand in the way of defeating them. But we have more varied politics than that, which is a good thing.
I don't think that's overthinking it. I think expecting parties to stop acting like parties is unrealistic and, ultimately, not even helpful.
Comments
https://wybory.gov.pl/sejmsenat2023/
Apart from the Applebaum Twitter below, I haven't seen the people still trying to vote etc reported anywhere else.
Hopefully, this will be a fair and fully accurate set of results with no-one crying foul.
I know that ideological differences between parties is not as great as they would like to pretend most of the time, and certainly not as much as their activists like to claim, but if there's no alliance in place then parties are separated for a reason, and that includes to compete against each other.
If their only purpose was to back each other what would even be the point of them both?
@hendopolis
·
27m
MIRROR: Fears of an all out war #TomorrowsPapersToday
In which case the calculation about what was in their best interest is far from as obvious as you paint it as - the exact same bemoaning of the LDs took place in those other seats, yet they were right to fight. Will they fall short here? Quite possibly, it might have been the wrong call in this case. But it is not the obvious game theory calculation you suggest it is.
What about intangible benefits of being seen to fight competitively rather than just concede an area to a secondary opponent, with the implication of writing off a whole bunch of other areas? In the area where I live your approach would see the LDs make no effort for parliamentary as they are third, yet in local councils Labour are non-existent next to LDs - if they stopped trying because it might benefit the main opponent, it could have the effect of undermining their strong local position.
What’s the best way of the government losing the seat?
a) coalesce around the best-placed challenger
b) challengers fight among themselves
I’m going to bed. You can send me your answer in the morning.
It would of course result in huge civil unrest so let’s hope things don’t turn ugly .
Until the results start coming out properly then we just don’t know if the exit polls are close to the mark . We need a clear majority for the opposition to make any attempts to sow doubt less likely to gain traction.
An attempt to stay in power even if they've lost would be a sign of a further deteriorating situation re global democracy. No attempt to do so would be a positive sign that at least in Poland it is not deteriorating. That shouldn't need celebrating, but it would be.
Your position appears to be that politics is entirely binary, and therefore every party has an obligation to co-operate in some fashion in service of the immediate goal of defeating the government.
They don't. I'm sure they'd all like that outcome, but they do have wider goals than a single by-election. They have their long term prospects to think about, their ideologies, the very reasons they exist as separate entities.
By your logic we should only have a single unity candidate at every by-election against a government incumbent since no one should stand in the way of defeating them. But we have more varied politics than that, which is a good thing.
I don't think that's overthinking it. I think expecting parties to stop acting like parties is unrealistic and, ultimately, not even helpful.
New Thread
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/liz-taylor-had-sex-with-ronald-reagan-1376416