People keep talking about a 'lack of enthusiasm' for Labour, as it sails towards a huge majority with somewhere between 400 and 500 seats - quite possibly nearer the latter than the former. I dread to think how many seats Labour would win if the voters were enthusiastic for them.
Any party that enthuses a large chunk of votes is by definition going to be repellent to an equally large chunk. That’s how politics works.
So when commentators say a party is polling well but isn’t enthusing voters…buy seats.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
Most of those examples had massive amounts of free land. That isn't true for our congested, crowded island.
I see the tactical game of not standing has started in Northern Ireland. The DUP have stood aside for the UUP in Fermanagh & S Tyrone, while they're also not standing against their former member Alex Easton in North Down, who is standing this time as an independent. The TUV are also backing Easton.
Fermanagh & South Tyrone majorities in recent elections:
2019: SF 57 2017: SF 875 2015: SF 530 2010: SF 4 (!!!)
The wiki page is great.
Rodney Connor had the support of the Democratic Unionist Party and Ulster Conservatives and Unionists - New Force[22] Following the close result Connor lodged a petition against Gildernew alleging irregularities in the counting of the votes had affected the result. However the Court found that there were only three ballot papers which could not be accounted for, and even if they were all votes for Connor, Gildernew would have had a plurality of one. The election was therefore upheld
Of course Fife NE was even closer in 2017, a mere 2 votes. Seems very harsh the losing LD candidate was not the candidate in 2019, when the LDs won, but maybe she did not wish to be.
Looking at the MRP I think the big question is whether the Tories have any survival instinct left - or any levers to pull. If they do then you'd expect something far more respectable.
In 2019 Labour looked not quite as screwed but had internal polling showing the low hundreds was a real possibility. But had the 2nd referendum to see off the Lib Dems, while as lots of refuseniks mainly objected to Corbyn as PM, so when it looked vanishingly unlikely could rally round.
The Tories don't appear to have a similar option if the golden oldie stuff is repelling as many voters as it persuades back from reform.
Their best hope maybe Labour flubbing things and making some voters rally round out of pity. Could equally end up with a circular firing squad or many Tories giving up. A lot riding on the debate for Sunak to show some fight. Less so for Starmer.
The Tories have two problems - amoral heartless bastards, and riven with mentalist policies which make people poorer and unhappy. And the levers they have chosen to pull make them look even more heartless and mental...
I mean yes. Their basic problem is that 14 years of failure has left them governing an unhappy country they no longer understand because are largely insulated from the different things that piss people off.
They are not a party for the aspirational. They deserve what is coming.
Just got phone polled by Gallup. Obviously calling from the Philippines. I said I would kill Sunak if I thought I could get away with it so I am probably on some sort of fucking list now.
I see the tactical game of not standing has started in Northern Ireland. The DUP have stood aside for the UUP in Fermanagh & S Tyrone, while they're also not standing against their former member Alex Easton in North Down, who is standing this time as an independent. The TUV are also backing Easton.
SF's candidate in Fermanagh and South Tyrone just resigned as the general secretary of the RCN to run for office. To go from leading a trade union that's pretty active in industrial disputes across the UK, to five years of abstaining from a parliamentary seat (at best), is quite a step - effectively exempting oneself from politics.
Sinn Féin MPs are very active politicians, just not from inside the Palace of Westminster.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
I see the tactical game of not standing has started in Northern Ireland. The DUP have stood aside for the UUP in Fermanagh & S Tyrone, while they're also not standing against their former member Alex Easton in North Down, who is standing this time as an independent. The TUV are also backing Easton.
Big moment for Fermanagh and South Tyrone really. The last three elections have had the same top two candidates, with majorities of 530 (for the UUP), 875 (for SF), and 57 (for SF), and neither is standing this time.
Even that is not as close as 2010 when it was famously won by 4 votes.
I'm assuming SF will win unless the new candidate is truly terrible and the UUP one really amazing or something.
Believe me, looking at the history of characters elected to (and unto) Westminster from all these parties, it doesn't matter whether the candidate is terrible or amazing as long as they are ussuns and not themmuns.
People keep talking about a 'lack of enthusiasm' for Labour, as it sails towards a huge majority with somewhere between 400 and 500 seats - quite possibly nearer the latter than the former. I dread to think how many seats Labour would win if the voters were enthusiastic for them.
Very true, but I remain convinced that the lack of enthusiasm for the alternative is genuine. They're downbeat, unambitious, and you'll be hard pressed to find many people out in the country who think it will be transformed for the better under Labour. They just hope it might end up being marginally less shit. Low expectations.
I see the tactical game of not standing has started in Northern Ireland. The DUP have stood aside for the UUP in Fermanagh & S Tyrone, while they're also not standing against their former member Alex Easton in North Down, who is standing this time as an independent. The TUV are also backing Easton.
SF's candidate in Fermanagh and South Tyrone just resigned as the general secretary of the RCN to run for office. To go from leading a trade union that's pretty active in industrial disputes across the UK, to five years of abstaining from a parliamentary seat (at best), is quite a step - effectively exempting oneself from politics.
Maybe she just hopes an increase in kneecapping will drum up a bit of trade for her members.
She can ask our GP surgery if she needs any advice about abstaining from her paid employment.
"There is also confusion among voters about which parties are really likely to win their seat, especially given the new constituency boundaries. Slightly more people look to the implied results of the 2019 election, which is also what some tactical voting sites are recommending. But that could be sub-optimal, since public opinion has changed so much since 2019, and confused tactical voters could cancel each other out. If tactical voters use that as their guide, the Conservatives could lose another six seats. But the Conservatives could hold eights vulnerable seats, because people are using out-of-date snapshots of who the anti-Conservative challenger party is."
Translation:
In many seats where in 2019 the LDs came 2nd to the Conservatives and Labour 3rd, it's wrong to treat the LDs as the best choice for tactical votes to beat the Conservatives. If you simply make the tactical choice based on who came 2nd in 2019, then misplaced tactical votes enable the Conservatives to hold on to a net 2 extra seats compared to a result without any tactical voting.
For informed tactical choices, to determine which party is better placed to challenge the Conservatives you should take into account current polling where Labour is up about 12% on their 2019 result, and the LDs are down about 3%.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
Most of those examples had massive amounts of free land. That isn't true for our congested, crowded island.
Well that would be a stunningly insightful comment if I were proposing that the pro-mass immigration policy platform will or should be in the UK. But I’m not, I’m saying someone somewhere will explore it at some point. Probably after a couple of decades of depopulation and chronic age-driven deflation.
(Though Singapore and UAE, and Taiwan for that matter, or - actually - the Welsh sized state of Israel, might demur.)
I see the tactical game of not standing has started in Northern Ireland. The DUP have stood aside for the UUP in Fermanagh & S Tyrone, while they're also not standing against their former member Alex Easton in North Down, who is standing this time as an independent. The TUV are also backing Easton.
Big moment for Fermanagh and South Tyrone really. The last three elections have had the same top two candidates, with majorities of 530 (for the UUP), 875 (for SF), and 57 (for SF), and neither is standing this time.
Even that is not as close as 2010 when it was famously won by 4 votes.
I'm assuming SF will win unless the new candidate is truly terrible and the UUP one really amazing or something.
Those are odd results. How on earth do the SNP do better with tactical voting? Isn’t the entire anti-SNP voting pattern in Scotland driven by unionist tactical voting?
Labour did so badly in 2019, and the swings to them this time are so large, that anyone looking to vote tactically by looking at the result last time, or the notional result last time on the new boundaries, will be seriously misled, and so attempts to tactical vote could actually save a lot of incumbents from the Labour wave.
By the way, have we had a thread header on the question of turnout? Someone mentioned the other day that the pollsters are assuming 72-78% which, given the lack of enthusiasm seems optimistic.
Pollsters almost always over estimate turnout. Few who answer polls say they won't vote.
Also pollsters don't tend to poll or adjust for those registered in several places (like students) oe too unwell to vote.
Yea, interesting question. I remember Stodge saying the other day he expectes it to be very high. Stodge is a clever chap and I'm sure he has his reasons but my uninformed guess is that it will be through the floor.
Low to mid 60's IMO.
The ID criteria stopped 2% of voters at the polling stations, possibly more who didn't get that far.
It stopped me. I normally like the little ritual of voting, but I couldn't be arsed digging through the big drawer for my driving license or passport for the sake of a performative vote in a contest which Labour were going to win anyway. May well end up the same on July 4th. This isn't a "they're all the same" apathy, it's that there genuinely isn't any imaginable world in which my vote has any impact on whether or not Mike Kane gets elected in Wythenshawe and Sale East.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
Are you saying that white immigrants are good but brown ones are not?
I am however highly confident that Sunak will no longer have his seat in a few months' time.
Has a PM ever lost his seat at a GE?
In Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie King in 1945.
Embarrassing stuff. I think Rishi is personally unpopular enough and at the crux of a major party change moment that he is genuinely at risk of the same.
I'd still put him as more likely to retain his seat than not, but it's not an inconsequential risk all the same.
In 1945 in Canada, PM Mackenzie King lost his seat BUT he (or rather his party) did win the general election, so he remained prime minister.
Seems unlikely that Rishi Sunak will pull THAT off in 2024.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
Are you saying that white immigrants are good but brown ones are not?
I don't believe the Kuomintang were white. I'll need to reread the history.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
The new right-wing coalition in the Netherlands will be trying out strongly anti-immigrant policies, so we can see what the reverse effect does.
As for the US... I understand someone called Donald Trump is the current favourite. I don't know much about his policies, but I understand his mother and two of his three wives were all immigrants, so I presume he's pro-immigration?
A brand can reach a point where mostly it represents itself, or at least where it's way past the point of being contestable by those who observe that a syllogism on which it apparently relies is unsound. Or in short the response to "He's a hypocrite" can be "Fuck off, libtard". This obviously wouldn't win a debate at the Oxford Union, but so what?
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
Unlike 1997 this is an election motivated by revenge, not hope.
And not healthy.
Oh I don't know. Revenge works - an awful lot of people want to demolish the Tory party for an entertainingly large number of reasons.
What we get instead will have its own problems - we can all list them. So its not about hope, its about retribution. People want E.L.E. because they don't want a government this egregiously awful again in their lifetimes. But that's the rational side. On the emotional side people want E.L.E. because they want to punish the Tory party.
Sorry, I know the remaining 6 Tory activists hate this. I joined a LibDem party reduced to a minibus full. It isn't fun. But sometimes it is justified. And oh bioy, is this justified.
The national rejoicing the day after E.L.E. will be something utterly wonderful.
And the day after that?
What about it? We will have destroyed the Tories. Anything that follows will be better.
I know you disagree. And I'm sorry. But them's the breaks.
Yes, I do disagree.
History is littered with people who fell for the anything else is better/can't be any worse, line.
It just highlights that you're not in control of your emotions, nor able to think consequentially about the future.
You're the guy who talked about WADING THROUGH BLOOD to stop a slightly boring lawyer. My dude, that is the the most fiercely un-self-aware thing I've heard.
Casino is instructive as one of the last people on PB still avowedly voting Conservative. We understand why - the education issue. Can't blame him for that.
Of more interest is who the Conservatives have lost. If you take Barty as the extreme libertarian wing and Leon as the extreme anti immigration right wing, both now want the Tories to lose. As do all the moderates, TSE etc.
Finding the remaining Casinos nationally isn't a core vote strategy, it's a last man standing strategy. Which makes me think the predictions of 60ish seats for the Conservatives rings true.
"There is also confusion among voters about which parties are really likely to win their seat, especially given the new constituency boundaries. Slightly more people look to the implied results of the 2019 election, which is also what some tactical voting sites are recommending. But that could be sub-optimal, since public opinion has changed so much since 2019, and confused tactical voters could cancel each other out. If tactical voters use that as their guide, the Conservatives could lose another six seats. But the Conservatives could hold eights vulnerable seats, because people are using out-of-date snapshots of who the anti-Conservative challenger party is."
Translation:
In many seats where in 2019 the LDs came 2nd to the Conservatives and Labour 3rd, it's wrong to treat the LDs as the best choice for tactical votes to beat the Conservatives. If you simply make the tactical choice based on who came 2nd in 2019, then misplaced tactical votes enable the Conservatives to hold on to a net 2 extra seats compared to a result without any tactical voting.
For informed tactical choices, to determine which party is better placed to challenge the Conservatives you should take into account current polling where Labour is up about 12% on their 2019 result, and the LDs are down about 3%.
Which in turn is misleading as it assumes there is no regional concentration in Lib Dem votes.
Anyway it’s heartening that the Nick Palmer vision of a two party duopoly is still being resisted by some “confused tactical voters”.
I see the tactical game of not standing has started in Northern Ireland. The DUP have stood aside for the UUP in Fermanagh & S Tyrone, while they're also not standing against their former member Alex Easton in North Down, who is standing this time as an independent. The TUV are also backing Easton.
SF's candidate in Fermanagh and South Tyrone just resigned as the general secretary of the RCN to run for office. To go from leading a trade union that's pretty active in industrial disputes across the UK, to five years of abstaining from a parliamentary seat (at best), is quite a step - effectively exempting oneself from politics.
Sinn Féin MPs are very active politicians, just not from inside the Palace of Westminster.
They are not. Your job is as follows. You talk. You do constituency busy work. You run again. Considering what politicians do, say if there is a Brexit referendum, or a massive real terms pay cut or pay rise for nurses, you take absolutely no position. Not voting about it and perhaps not even campaigning (like with Brexit, where they spent approx. £0 on the referendum campaign).
However, if you are in a deliberative assembly where you actually take your seat, your role as a Sinn Féin legislator remains pretty limited. Wait for orders transmitted from the Árd Chomhairle - or perhaps transmitted down through it. Dissent equals expulsion.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
Are you saying that white immigrants are good but brown ones are not?
I don't believe the Kuomintang were white. I'll need to reread the history.
Are you saying that white immigrants are good for the US but brown ones are not?
By the way, have we had a thread header on the question of turnout? Someone mentioned the other day that the pollsters are assuming 72-78% which, given the lack of enthusiasm seems optimistic.
Pollsters almost always over estimate turnout. Few who answer polls say they won't vote.
Also pollsters don't tend to poll or adjust for those registered in several places (like students) or too unwell to vote.
Incoming extinction level event for the Tories – politicalbetting.com
?GENERAL ELECTION 2024: FIRST MRP POLL? We at @electcalculus and @findoutnow asked over 10k people for @DailyMailUK who they intended to vote for in the general election. Seats tally CON: 66 LAB: 476 LD: 59 Reform: 0 Green: 2 This accounts for tactical voting.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
Unlike 1997 this is an election motivated by revenge, not hope.
And not healthy.
Well, in 1997 Tony was hailed as the Messiah so things could only go one way from there.
That’s why I think Labour will win at least 3 terms, because Starmer starts from much lower expectations. Things really can only get better this time.
And that’s very, very, healthy.
But yeah you’re right. We’re seething with the tories and they’re about to get the mother of all kickings. You screwed with just about everything that makes for wellbeing in this nation. So now take your medicine.
Ah, the child has turned up.
Isn't it past your bedtime?
You must be a boon to your party when out campaigning.
I converted your mum.
Whenever my late Mum met people like you, she'd start talking about how she'd done close to 5000 vasectomies.
She got onto that, yes, but only after she'd pledged me her vote.
Those are odd results. How on earth do the SNP do better with tactical voting? Isn’t the entire anti-SNP voting pattern in Scotland driven by unionist tactical voting?
Labour did so badly in 2019, and the swings to them this time are so large, that anyone looking to vote tactically by looking at the result last time, or the notional result last time on the new boundaries, will be seriously misled, and so attempts to tactical vote could actually save a lot of incumbents from the Labour wave.
I'm not really sure how I should vote.
I've always lived in a safe Tory seat, it (or its predecessor seat) have been Tory since 1924 (auspicious!). So I don't tend to worry about whether my vote would or would not make a difference, it typically would not. In 2017 I voted Tory in it, because even though my vote would not be needed for the Tory to win, I felt my antipathy to Corbyn was such I should my vote where my mouth was, and to share in the culpability if things then all went pear shaped.
So on a similar basis I should perhaps vote Labour, as I do think it's time the Tories lose and nationally they are the game in town. They are also second in the seat, and I don't think I've actually voted Labour before in an election. But the LDs are much stronger locally. I voted for them in 2010 and 2015 hoping for a Lib-Con coalition. So on a tactical level it might be better to vote for them, unless the national tide is so strong that even without much local influence Labour retain the main anti-Tory vote.
I see the tactical game of not standing has started in Northern Ireland. The DUP have stood aside for the UUP in Fermanagh & S Tyrone, while they're also not standing against their former member Alex Easton in North Down, who is standing this time as an independent. The TUV are also backing Easton.
Fermanagh & South Tyrone majorities in recent elections:
2019: SF 57 2017: SF 875 2015: SF 530 2010: SF 4 (!!!)
The wiki page is great.
Rodney Connor had the support of the Democratic Unionist Party and Ulster Conservatives and Unionists - New Force[22] Following the close result Connor lodged a petition against Gildernew alleging irregularities in the counting of the votes had affected the result. However the Court found that there were only three ballot papers which could not be accounted for, and even if they were all votes for Connor, Gildernew would have had a plurality of one. The election was therefore upheld
Of course Fife NE was even closer in 2017, a mere 2 votes. Seems very harsh the losing LD candidate was not the candidate in 2019, when the LDs won, but maybe she did not wish to be.
The UUP could win Fermanagh and South Tyrone if their supporters are at home for the 12th July and Sinn Fein supporters are away on holiday to avoid the 12th July.
Is this actually an MRP? Or have they just fucked about with the electoral calculus model and overlaid it on each seat?
MRP doesn't mean any old seat by seat prediction; it means multi-level modelling and post-stratification constituency projection.
To be done correctly you must first estimate the relationship between a wide variety of characteristics about prospective voters and their opinions – in this case, which party they will vote for at the general election – in a ‘multilevel model’. And then use data at the constituency level to predict the outcomes of seats based on the concentration of various different types of voters who live there, according to what the multilevel model says about their probability of voting for various parties (‘post-stratification’). Like what YouGov does.
Looking at the seat numbers here this looks very similar to the existing Electoral Calculus forecast, which simply applies current polling averages.
I see the tactical game of not standing has started in Northern Ireland. The DUP have stood aside for the UUP in Fermanagh & S Tyrone, while they're also not standing against their former member Alex Easton in North Down, who is standing this time as an independent. The TUV are also backing Easton.
Sinn Fein have dropped out of Lagan Valley, Mid Down and South Belfast, East Belfast, and North Down.
Easton has actually, a good chance in North Down. The combined Unionist vote in the Assembly was 62%, compared to 29% for Alliance. Farry will pick up most of the other 9%, but if Unionists swing behind Easton, he'll win it.
By the way, have we had a thread header on the question of turnout? Someone mentioned the other day that the pollsters are assuming 72-78% which, given the lack of enthusiasm seems optimistic.
Pollsters almost always over estimate turnout. Few who answer polls say they won't vote.
Also pollsters don't tend to poll or adjust for those registered in several places (like students) or too unwell to vote.
Too unwell including those who are dead.
Maybe Sunak will do something about this discrimination against the dead. Call it the Quintuple Lock: your pension and vote will continue after your death.
I can believe the MRP is plausible. First past the post can be brutal when you fall below a certain threshold and your vote is geographically dispersed. Remember the Lib Dems won 57 seats with 23% of the vote in 2010 Vs Labour on 258 with 29% both UK wide).
There is a 'tipping point' but we can't know for sure if it'll be reached or not. Defeat or oblivion, that is the question.
By the way, have we had a thread header on the question of turnout? Someone mentioned the other day that the pollsters are assuming 72-78% which, given the lack of enthusiasm seems optimistic.
Pollsters almost always over estimate turnout. Few who answer polls say they won't vote.
Also pollsters don't tend to poll or adjust for those registered in several places (like students) oe too unwell to vote.
Yea, interesting question. I remember Stodge saying the other day he expectes it to be very high. Stodge is a clever chap and I'm sure he has his reasons but my uninformed guess is that it will be through the floor.
Low to mid 60's IMO.
The ID criteria stopped 2% of voters at the polling stations, possibly more who didn't get that far.
It stopped me. I normally like the little ritual of voting, but I couldn't be arsed digging through the big drawer for my driving license or passport for the sake of a performative vote in a contest which Labour were going to win anyway. May well end up the same on July 4th. This isn't a "they're all the same" apathy, it's that there genuinely isn't any imaginable world in which my vote has any impact on whether or not Mike Kane gets elected in Wythenshawe and Sale East.
My guess is sub-2001 levels of turnout.
Could be close. Turnout has recovered since the lows of 2001 but it's still not back up to 1997 levels. If it is true people are not super enthusiastic about Labour, and I know too many Tories who say they are worried about people staying home to ignore that angle, then 2001 levels unfortunately look quite possible.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
Are you saying that white immigrants are good but brown ones are not?
I don't believe the Kuomintang were white. I'll need to reread the history.
Are you saying that white immigrants are good for the US but brown ones are not?
I'm simply correcting @TimS's implication that the US has had a continuous policy since 1776.
Can anyone explain what's happened with EC's prediction? Before today they had the Tories on 98 seats, with the error bars meaning 98% possibility of Lab majority and 100% chance of Lab largest party. The newer version has Tories on 66 seats and the error bars mean 97% chance of Lab majority and 99% of Lab largest party. Why would the error bars be wider now?
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
IIRC Canada has specific issues. It had a bad demography for around 20 years so it had to import people, but
People who migrate there were older than other countries (so Canada received less benefit) so they focussed on younger migrants
People buy property there (it's seen as a safe haven from, say, China)
I am however highly confident that Sunak will no longer have his seat in a few months' time.
Has a PM ever lost his seat at a GE?
Not quite - the nearest was Balfour who lost his seat in 1906, but his government collapsed due to internal infighting so he didn't wait for the inevitable electoral drubbing before handing over to the Liberals, who took office first and then called an election.
The "internal infighting" was a thing, however Balfour & Co. did NOT believe defeat at hands of Liberals was "inevitable".
Instead, they thought that Liberal internal divisions on policy AND personality grounds, would scupper the new HMG shortly after it took office. Which did NOT happen, thanks to the leadership skills AND intestinal fortitude of the new PM, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.
Can anyone explain what's happened with EC's prediction? Before today they had the Tories on 98 seats, with the error bars meaning 98% possibility of Lab majority and 100% chance of Lab largest party. The newer version has Tories on 66 seats and the error bars mean 97% chance of Lab majority and 99% of Lab largest party. Why would the error bars be wider now?
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
Unlike 1997 this is an election motivated by revenge, not hope.
And not healthy.
Oh I don't know. Revenge works - an awful lot of people want to demolish the Tory party for an entertainingly large number of reasons.
What we get instead will have its own problems - we can all list them. So its not about hope, its about retribution. People want E.L.E. because they don't want a government this egregiously awful again in their lifetimes. But that's the rational side. On the emotional side people want E.L.E. because they want to punish the Tory party.
Sorry, I know the remaining 6 Tory activists hate this. I joined a LibDem party reduced to a minibus full. It isn't fun. But sometimes it is justified. And oh bioy, is this justified.
The national rejoicing the day after E.L.E. will be something utterly wonderful.
We’ve been through a difficult few years as a country. Certainly the last 8 years but arguably the last 17, since the run on Northern Rock.
It’s not fair to blame the Tories for everything, but Leviticus 16, 21-22 says it all:
Then Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness by means of someone designated for the task. The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness.
The Conservatives have been very unlucky with the pandemic and Ukraine, but they've also made a ruinous hash of Brexit (itself a complete accident born of political expediency,) and have ruled for the good of nobody and nothing, save for the bank balances of plutocrats, landlords and wealthy pensioners. If they are to be crushed then frankly they deserve everything that's coming to them.
I think the failure of the Conservatives goes back further, to austerity. They imposed austerity, but then never had a working plan to heal after austerity. Brexit promised miracles it couldn't deliver. Johnson promised miracles he couldn't deliver. Truss promised miracles that were so crazy she was dumped in weeks.
And took decisions to protect current voters (in 2010), without worrying about potential future voters.
It's a combination of the two I think? The public accepted austerity as long as it was a short term thing that didn't affect them if they were doing OK. I didn't like Cameron and Osborne or it, but it might have worked if it was a few years hardship, then having balanced the books, back to sharing the proceeds of growth. Brexit threw a big spanner in that - even its advocates admit short term it harmed the economy - while providing a huge distraction that meant other things that needed sorting were left to fester. Covid and Ukraine, plus demographic pressures, have then pushed us into disastrous territory.
But that's bad governance. Your paid to prepare and chart a course that improves things, however gradually, while seeing us through black swans. Instead they decided to indulge themselves at the expense of the country and thus when the bad times hit have had little to fall back on in the way of achievements or a positive story to tell. And thus are in Zugzwang.
"There is also confusion among voters about which parties are really likely to win their seat, especially given the new constituency boundaries. Slightly more people look to the implied results of the 2019 election, which is also what some tactical voting sites are recommending. But that could be sub-optimal, since public opinion has changed so much since 2019, and confused tactical voters could cancel each other out. If tactical voters use that as their guide, the Conservatives could lose another six seats. But the Conservatives could hold eights vulnerable seats, because people are using out-of-date snapshots of who the anti-Conservative challenger party is."
Translation:
In many seats where in 2019 the LDs came 2nd to the Conservatives and Labour 3rd, it's wrong to treat the LDs as the best choice for tactical votes to beat the Conservatives. If you simply make the tactical choice based on who came 2nd in 2019, then misplaced tactical votes enable the Conservatives to hold on to a net 2 extra seats compared to a result without any tactical voting.
For informed tactical choices, to determine which party is better placed to challenge the Conservatives you should take into account current polling where Labour is up about 12% on their 2019 result, and the LDs are down about 3%.
Which in turn is misleading as it assumes there is no regional concentration in Lib Dem votes.
Anyway it’s heartening that the Nick Palmer vision of a two party duopoly is still being resisted by some “confused tactical voters”.
Utter nonsense from you. Any regional concentration in Lib Dem votes in 2019 will already be reflected in the notional 2019 results for each parliamentary seat in the Electoral Calculus modelling.
And you're not taking issue with me, you're taking issue with what Electoral Calculus are saying in their study.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
Say what you really mean.
Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.
Clearly no Unionist tactical voting if the SNP end up with more seats.
Must say I am surprised by that too.
But does anyone really believe this? Tories down 300 seats? I don’t.
I think the evidence from local elections is quite clear. Scottish Unionists vote will Unionist, in preference to SNP.
It's quite bizarre, but on current polling, the Conservatives will be losing 200+ seats, but gaining one or two in Scotland, because the SNP vote fall further than their own.
Voters are worried there will be violence Luntz says his focus groups are telling him.
Here or the USA? Because if it is the latter that's almost certain - there was violence last time and the violently inclined are much more fired up and prepared, and many more officials will be giving them political and legal cover this time. I think Trump was disappointed how little violence there was last time.
Those are odd results. How on earth do the SNP do better with tactical voting? Isn’t the entire anti-SNP voting pattern in Scotland driven by unionist tactical voting?
Labour did so badly in 2019, and the swings to them this time are so large, that anyone looking to vote tactically by looking at the result last time, or the notional result last time on the new boundaries, will be seriously misled, and so attempts to tactical vote could actually save a lot of incumbents from the Labour wave.
I'm not really sure how I should vote.
I've always lived in a safe Tory seat, it (or its predecessor seat) have been Tory since 1924 (auspicious!). So I don't tend to worry about whether my vote would or would not make a difference, it typically would not. In 2017 I voted Tory in it, because even though my vote would not be needed for the Tory to win, I felt my antipathy to Corbyn was such I should my vote where my mouth was, and to share in the culpability if things then all went pear shaped.
So on a similar basis I should perhaps vote Labour, as I do think it's time the Tories lose and nationally they are the game in town. They are also second in the seat, and I don't think I've actually voted Labour before in an election. But the LDs are much stronger locally. I voted for them in 2010 and 2015 hoping for a Lib-Con coalition. So on a tactical level it might be better to vote for them, unless the national tide is so strong that even without much local influence Labour retain the main anti-Tory vote.
I'll go with my gut on the day.
I too am in a Tory safe seat with Lab second. But if they win here they have a 250 seat majority already. Does 251 really make things better for them?
So I shall choose between LD or Green, who won't win.
Trump in 2016: “She shouldn’t be allowed to run...If she wins, it would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis. In that situation, we could very well have a sitting president under felony indictment and, ultimately, a criminal trial. It would grind government to a halt.”
Voters are worried there will be violence Luntz says his focus groups are telling him.
Surely it's implausible that extremists would try to storm the US congress, lynch the US Vice President, etc. (sorry)
Even more implausible that said former Vice-President would say the President instigating it was unfit to be President again, then meekly return to licking his boots.
Voters are worried there will be violence Luntz says his focus groups are telling him.
Here or the USA? Because if it is the latter that's almost certain - there was violence last time and the violently inclined are much more fired up and prepared, and many more officials will be giving them political and legal cover this time. I think Trump was disappointed how little violence there was last time.
US.
But he then went on to burble something about brexit causing violence in UK which seems unlikely as it has been several years now.
Clearly no Unionist tactical voting if the SNP end up with more seats.
Must say I am surprised by that too.
But does anyone really believe this? Tories down 300 seats? I don’t.
I hear you. We just can't get there.
Yes, but what if we could?
Problem is that poll after poll after poll after poll keeps saying E.L.E. is happening. So as absurd as it looks, it does appear to be the will of the people.
Paddy Ashdown ate his hat. What are you going to eat?
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
IIRC Canada has specific issues. It had a bad demography for around 20 years so it had to import people, but
People who migrate there were older than other countries (so Canada received less benefit) so they focussed on younger migrants
People buy property there (it's seen as a safe haven from, say, China)
Like the United States, Canada was built with the contribution of MANY immigrants.
But unlike the USA, the Great White North kept welcoming immigrants for decades after the USA largely closed it's gates for about half-century between 1920 and 1970.
One thing that was noticeable when I first visited Canada - and also the last time - is that immigrants are still a bigger deal north of the border than to the south. But less of a political issue; possible that's changing, but tend to doubt it.
Voters are worried there will be violence Luntz says his focus groups are telling him.
Here or the USA? Because if it is the latter that's almost certain - there was violence last time and the violently inclined are much more fired up and prepared, and many more officials will be giving them political and legal cover this time. I think Trump was disappointed how little violence there was last time.
US.
But he then went on to burble something about brexit causing violence in UK which seems unlikely as it has been several years now.
Remain extremists insisting on driving on the right hand side of the road?
What does it mean to apply tactical voting, five weeks out, in a seat-by-seat MRP? Does it mean that people will change their mind predictably based on top 2 in their old constituency in 2019, in a way that they haven't done yet, but will by polling day?
I'm looking at the Richmond numbers where the LDs went from 12% (old seat GE 2019) to 3% (new seat MRP). The transition matrix says the LDs are modelled to lose 50% of votes between today and 4 July. That means around 6% of people are saying LD today. But that already seems like a big "tactical" vote - unless their overall vote share has really tanked to something like 6% before tactical voting.
In the latest YouGov poll something like one-third of 2019 Lib Dem voters have switched to Labour. So I guess the question is, are these natural centre-left Labour voters who were driven away from Labour by Corbyn, or are they tactical voters who have made a decision to vote Labour ahead of time, or are they tactical voters who tactically-voted Lib Dem last time, and when they work out what's what in their local seat they may well end up tactically voting Lib Dem again?
There's definitely potential for the model to count tactical voting twice, if people in the polling sample are already making tactical voting decisions.
Disaster poll for the Tories. No other way to put it.
I am concluding the public decided in 2022. Thoughts?
People decided when they got their first gas bill of that winter. Or when their mortgage was up for renewal. Or maybe when, after voting Conservative because Labour were going to foist Corbyn on us, the Tories foist Truss on us. Or when Boris ate a cake. Who knows.
Either way I doubt what happens in the next 5 weeks will change anyone's opinion on the last 5 years.
Disaster poll for the Tories. No other way to put it.
I am concluding the public decided in 2022. Thoughts?
They were in trouble in 2022 from a variety of issues and the cumulative weight of 12 years in office. The Johnson-Truss-Sunak merry go round then torpedoed their credibility with the public, shattered any remnants of internal cohesion, and destroyed party morale.
They've had a go at restoring fortunes and morale, but it's been haphazard and uncertain, and staying with Truss might have been preferable in terms of attempted rebuild.
Do they have enough people fighting hard to stave off the worst case scenarios? Maybe, rage against the "It's their turn" theory of politics all we want, it does seem to be that way sometimes.
I see the tactical game of not standing has started in Northern Ireland. The DUP have stood aside for the UUP in Fermanagh & S Tyrone, while they're also not standing against their former member Alex Easton in North Down, who is standing this time as an independent. The TUV are also backing Easton.
SF's candidate in Fermanagh and South Tyrone just resigned as the general secretary of the RCN to run for office. To go from leading a trade union that's pretty active in industrial disputes across the UK, to five years of abstaining from a parliamentary seat (at best), is quite a step - effectively exempting oneself from politics.
Sinn Féin MPs are very active politicians, just not from inside the Palace of Westminster.
Trump in 2016: “She shouldn’t be allowed to run...If she wins, it would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis. In that situation, we could very well have a sitting president under felony indictment and, ultimately, a criminal trial. It would grind government to a halt.”
Those are odd results. How on earth do the SNP do better with tactical voting? Isn’t the entire anti-SNP voting pattern in Scotland driven by unionist tactical voting?
Labour did so badly in 2019, and the swings to them this time are so large, that anyone looking to vote tactically by looking at the result last time, or the notional result last time on the new boundaries, will be seriously misled, and so attempts to tactical vote could actually save a lot of incumbents from the Labour wave.
I'm not really sure how I should vote.
I've always lived in a safe Tory seat, it (or its predecessor seat) have been Tory since 1924 (auspicious!). So I don't tend to worry about whether my vote would or would not make a difference, it typically would not. In 2017 I voted Tory in it, because even though my vote would not be needed for the Tory to win, I felt my antipathy to Corbyn was such I should my vote where my mouth was, and to share in the culpability if things then all went pear shaped.
So on a similar basis I should perhaps vote Labour, as I do think it's time the Tories lose and nationally they are the game in town. They are also second in the seat, and I don't think I've actually voted Labour before in an election. But the LDs are much stronger locally. I voted for them in 2010 and 2015 hoping for a Lib-Con coalition. So on a tactical level it might be better to vote for them, unless the national tide is so strong that even without much local influence Labour retain the main anti-Tory vote.
I see the tactical game of not standing has started in Northern Ireland. The DUP have stood aside for the UUP in Fermanagh & S Tyrone, while they're also not standing against their former member Alex Easton in North Down, who is standing this time as an independent. The TUV are also backing Easton.
Sinn Fein have dropped out of Lagan Valley, Mid Down and South Belfast, East Belfast, and North Down.
Easton has actually, a good chance in North Down. The combined Unionist vote in the Assembly was 62%, compared to 29% for Alliance. Farry will pick up most of the other 9%, but if Unionists swing behind Easton, he'll win it.
He has a good chance, but I don't think he's a foregone conclusion. In 2019, there were only 4 candidates, the winning Farry (APNI), Easton (then DUP), the UUP and the Conservatives. Farry won with a 7% majority. The TUV and SF not standing in North Down is, thus, no change on last time. Easton standing as an independent with no DUP opposition is much the same as Easton standing for the DUP. The UUP got 12% last time: that's squeezable and probably more likely to go Alliance than Easton.
The 2022 Assembly results first preference votes were: Alliance 29% Easton 23% DUP 20% UUP 12% Green 7% TUV 4% SF 2% SDLP 2% others 2%
But note Alliance got more UUP transfers than the DUP.
People keep talking about a 'lack of enthusiasm' for Labour, as it sails towards a huge majority with somewhere between 400 and 500 seats - quite possibly nearer the latter than the former. I dread to think how many seats Labour would win if the voters were enthusiastic for them.
But it's true that if that kind of result happens it will be more because the Tories lose than because Labour wins. This is not like 1997 when it was both and Camelot defeated sleaze. Some idiots really thought Blair was inspiring. Nobody thinks Starmer is.
Those are odd results. How on earth do the SNP do better with tactical voting? Isn’t the entire anti-SNP voting pattern in Scotland driven by unionist tactical voting?
Labour did so badly in 2019, and the swings to them this time are so large, that anyone looking to vote tactically by looking at the result last time, or the notional result last time on the new boundaries, will be seriously misled, and so attempts to tactical vote could actually save a lot of incumbents from the Labour wave.
I'm not really sure how I should vote.
I've always lived in a safe Tory seat, it (or its predecessor seat) have been Tory since 1924 (auspicious!). So I don't tend to worry about whether my vote would or would not make a difference, it typically would not. In 2017 I voted Tory in it, because even though my vote would not be needed for the Tory to win, I felt my antipathy to Corbyn was such I should my vote where my mouth was, and to share in the culpability if things then all went pear shaped.
So on a similar basis I should perhaps vote Labour, as I do think it's time the Tories lose and nationally they are the game in town. They are also second in the seat, and I don't think I've actually voted Labour before in an election. But the LDs are much stronger locally. I voted for them in 2010 and 2015 hoping for a Lib-Con coalition. So on a tactical level it might be better to vote for them, unless the national tide is so strong that even without much local influence Labour retain the main anti-Tory vote.
Completely off topic but does Pat Cullen plan to stand for Sinn Féin in NI signal that they might actually take their seats?
They didn't in 2017 - there is no reason to now. Their voters know the deal. Cullen is an unusually high calibre candidate for the party, which remains a top-down centralist organisation with no opportunities for individual contributors to shine except as media personalities.
The worst signal for the Tories is that right wingers on here are looking at these apocalyptic polls and shrugging and saying “meh, whatevs, they deserve it”
Almost everyone has deserted them
I wonder why? Maybe it’s because the Tories and their obsessions have simply not addressed the nation’s concerns. And after being huckstered by BoZo, the people have got an XXXL sized dose of buyers remorse.
They let in 2m migrants in 3 years. An act of such astounding irresponsibility, so evilly reckless, so utterly unasked for, so obviously unmandated, I want the Tories destroyed forever. I want them pulped into nothing. I want them turned into political atoms and dispersed by the solar winds
I do wonder what they were thinking (do they think?)
Mass migration shores up the tax base, house prices and rental incomes. Plus, most of the population doesn't pay attention to immigration for work or study purposes. It's therefore small wonder that the current Government uses boat people bashing to try to shore up its base, but makes only fitful attempts in other areas.
Labour will be fixated on the boat people whilst leaving everyone else alone for all the same reasons (with bells on, because so many on the left are for open borders.)
I believe Labour have said they want to reduce overall immigration, with a focus on skills training to fill gaps in the labour market, like with healthcare.
They can say what they like.
I'm not sure any governing party has what it takes to stop mass immigration, whilst also developing the economy.
It requires too much of a change to our economic model and the international treaty and legal system.
No party claims to support “mass” migration. It’s too politically toxic to do so. Rhetoric and reality are rather disconnected. It would be intriguing to see a party somewhere actually make that sort of positive case - essentially the immigration version of the YIMBY movement.
I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon in Britain, or the EU, or the US. But somewhere it might and it will be interesting to see. Because in a world of declining demographics the country that can successfully attract vast numbers of young working age people and their money will be the future hegemon.
At the moment those countries are the USA, despite it claiming not to be, the UAE (with its own highly discriminatory de facto caste system) and Singapore (ditto).
Pro-immigrationism is a failed ideology. Canada’s GDP per capita is now declining as a result of the number of people they’ve let in.
That is presumably a cause-effect mechanism proven by peer reviewed research, rather than a lazy non-sequitur?
It worked reasonably well for the USA between 1776 and, well, now. Seemed to do OK for ancient Rome, and I already mentioned the Gulf States and Singapore. Argentina and Brazil had a pretty good run in the 19th century. Israel is what it is due to mass Jewish immigration since the formation of the state. Taiwan was a backwater, then the Kuomintang arrived in numbers and it’s now a global manufacturing superpower. Ireland’s forced experiment with the opposite back then wasn’t entirely a cracking success. Nor was West Africa’s mass depopulation by slavery over multiple centuries.
Anyway you don’t need to worry, because I’m pretty sure this island won’t be where a pro-immigration policy platform comes into play. No, it’ll be somewhere with no dominant native culture and therefore open to anyone, or conversely somewhere with a return-home attraction for a particular group, in the Israel mould.
State formation by homogeneous ethnic/cultural groups has very little in common with modern liberal ideology on immigration. You can't seriously compare the arrival of the Kuomintang in Taiwan with a modern country opening its borders, and that wasn't an entirely happy story for the indigenous population of the island in any case.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
Say what you really mean.
Nearly half of US unicorn companies were founded by immigrants. That's post william's so called 'hegemony'.
Telling that the graphic displayed lumps all "Europeans" into a single group.
Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.
Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.
People keep talking about a 'lack of enthusiasm' for Labour, as it sails towards a huge majority with somewhere between 400 and 500 seats - quite possibly nearer the latter than the former. I dread to think how many seats Labour would win if the voters were enthusiastic for them.
But it's true that if that kind of result happens it will be more because the Tories lose than because Labour wins. This is not like 1997 when it was both and Camelot defeated sleaze. Some idiots really thought Blair was inspiring. Nobody thinks Starmer is.
That may be so, but I have to disagree with the first sentence all the same.
I don't believe a party could (possibly) win such a big victory more because the opponents lost than they win. However bad your opponent is you need to be able to take advantage of it. Whether people do so enthusiastically or not, if they do it means they had sufficient incentive to choose you over another option, rather than just punish the other lot.
Like in 2019 - Boris has to get some credit for the scale of the victory. There were unique factors around Brexit and Corbyn of 2019 was hindered in a way that turned out not to be the case for Corbyn in 2017, but the Tories still have to seize on those weaknesses to not only win, but to win big.
In the 1997 Major lost 178 seats and got 30.7% of the vote. This was against Blair at his most formidable. But Major started at 343 seats compared with Sunaks 360. Even if the Tories lost the same again they would still be near 200.
Blair gained 146 seats with most of the rest going to the Lib Dem’s. Starmer repeating that is probably short of an overall majority. The Tories are going to be hammered, no doubt about it but Labour winning 476 seats from where they are? It’s ridiculous.
People keep talking about a 'lack of enthusiasm' for Labour, as it sails towards a huge majority with somewhere between 400 and 500 seats - quite possibly nearer the latter than the former. I dread to think how many seats Labour would win if the voters were enthusiastic for them.
But it's true that if that kind of result happens it will be more because the Tories lose than because Labour wins. This is not like 1997 when it was both and Camelot defeated sleaze. Some idiots really thought Blair was inspiring. Nobody thinks Starmer is.
Isn't that just a difference between the times - 90s tolerance, relief, and self-aware irony - 20s post-pandemic neurosis and paranoia.
Those are odd results. How on earth do the SNP do better with tactical voting? Isn’t the entire anti-SNP voting pattern in Scotland driven by unionist tactical voting?
Labour did so badly in 2019, and the swings to them this time are so large, that anyone looking to vote tactically by looking at the result last time, or the notional result last time on the new boundaries, will be seriously misled, and so attempts to tactical vote could actually save a lot of incumbents from the Labour wave.
I'm not really sure how I should vote.
I've always lived in a safe Tory seat, it (or its predecessor seat) have been Tory since 1924 (auspicious!). So I don't tend to worry about whether my vote would or would not make a difference, it typically would not. In 2017 I voted Tory in it, because even though my vote would not be needed for the Tory to win, I felt my antipathy to Corbyn was such I should my vote where my mouth was, and to share in the culpability if things then all went pear shaped.
So on a similar basis I should perhaps vote Labour, as I do think it's time the Tories lose and nationally they are the game in town. They are also second in the seat, and I don't think I've actually voted Labour before in an election. But the LDs are much stronger locally. I voted for them in 2010 and 2015 hoping for a Lib-Con coalition. So on a tactical level it might be better to vote for them, unless the national tide is so strong that even without much local influence Labour retain the main anti-Tory vote.
I see the tactical game of not standing has started in Northern Ireland. The DUP have stood aside for the UUP in Fermanagh & S Tyrone, while they're also not standing against their former member Alex Easton in North Down, who is standing this time as an independent. The TUV are also backing Easton.
Sinn Fein have dropped out of Lagan Valley, Mid Down and South Belfast, East Belfast, and North Down.
Easton has actually, a good chance in North Down. The combined Unionist vote in the Assembly was 62%, compared to 29% for Alliance. Farry will pick up most of the other 9%, but if Unionists swing behind Easton, he'll win it.
He has a good chance, but I don't think he's a foregone conclusion. In 2019, there were only 4 candidates, the winning Farry (APNI), Easton (then DUP), the UUP and the Conservatives. Farry won with a 7% majority. The TUV and SF not standing in North Down is, thus, no change on last time. Easton standing as an independent with no DUP opposition is much the same as Easton standing for the DUP. The UUP got 12% last time: that's squeezable and probably more likely to go Alliance than Easton.
The 2022 Assembly results first preference votes were: Alliance 29% Easton 23% DUP 20% UUP 12% Green 7% TUV 4% SF 2% SDLP 2% others 2%
But note Alliance got more UUP transfers than the DUP.
I don't understand the appeal of Alliance, who seem like the left wing of the Lib Dems with knobs on.
In the 1997 Major lost 178 seats and got 30.7% of the vote. This was against Blair at his most formidable. But Major started at 343 seats compared with Sunaks 360. Even if the Tories lost the same again they would still be near 200.
Blair gained 146 seats with most of the rest going to the Lib Dem’s. Starmer repeating that is probably short of an overall majority. The Tories are going to be hammered, no doubt about it but Labour winning 476 seats from where they are? It’s ridiculous.
But are Tories going to get 30% of the vote? I think 25% is much more likely, and at that level anything could happen to the spread.
I see the tactical game of not standing has started in Northern Ireland. The DUP have stood aside for the UUP in Fermanagh & S Tyrone, while they're also not standing against their former member Alex Easton in North Down, who is standing this time as an independent. The TUV are also backing Easton.
Sinn Fein have dropped out of Lagan Valley, Mid Down and South Belfast, East Belfast, and North Down.
Easton has actually, a good chance in North Down. The combined Unionist vote in the Assembly was 62%, compared to 29% for Alliance. Farry will pick up most of the other 9%, but if Unionists swing behind Easton, he'll win it.
He has a good chance, but I don't think he's a foregone conclusion. In 2019, there were only 4 candidates, the winning Farry (APNI), Easton (then DUP), the UUP and the Conservatives. Farry won with a 7% majority. The TUV and SF not standing in North Down is, thus, no change on last time. Easton standing as an independent with no DUP opposition is much the same as Easton standing for the DUP. The UUP got 12% last time: that's squeezable and probably more likely to go Alliance than Easton.
The 2022 Assembly results first preference votes were: Alliance 29% Easton 23% DUP 20% UUP 12% Green 7% TUV 4% SF 2% SDLP 2% others 2%
But note Alliance got more UUP transfers than the DUP.
I don't understand the appeal of Alliance, who seem like the left wing of the Lib Dems with knobs on.
What's not to like about the left wing of the LibDems with knobs on?
Those are odd results. How on earth do the SNP do better with tactical voting? Isn’t the entire anti-SNP voting pattern in Scotland driven by unionist tactical voting?
Labour did so badly in 2019, and the swings to them this time are so large, that anyone looking to vote tactically by looking at the result last time, or the notional result last time on the new boundaries, will be seriously misled, and so attempts to tactical vote could actually save a lot of incumbents from the Labour wave.
I'm not really sure how I should vote.
I've always lived in a safe Tory seat, it (or its predecessor seat) have been Tory since 1924 (auspicious!). So I don't tend to worry about whether my vote would or would not make a difference, it typically would not. In 2017 I voted Tory in it, because even though my vote would not be needed for the Tory to win, I felt my antipathy to Corbyn was such I should my vote where my mouth was, and to share in the culpability if things then all went pear shaped.
So on a similar basis I should perhaps vote Labour, as I do think it's time the Tories lose and nationally they are the game in town. They are also second in the seat, and I don't think I've actually voted Labour before in an election. But the LDs are much stronger locally. I voted for them in 2010 and 2015 hoping for a Lib-Con coalition. So on a tactical level it might be better to vote for them, unless the national tide is so strong that even without much local influence Labour retain the main anti-Tory vote.
I'll go with my gut on the day.
In your position I think I would look to find out as much as I could about the respective Labour and Lib Dem candidates, and see if that helped me to make the decision.
I see the tactical game of not standing has started in Northern Ireland. The DUP have stood aside for the UUP in Fermanagh & S Tyrone, while they're also not standing against their former member Alex Easton in North Down, who is standing this time as an independent. The TUV are also backing Easton.
Sinn Fein have dropped out of Lagan Valley, Mid Down and South Belfast, East Belfast, and North Down.
Easton has actually, a good chance in North Down. The combined Unionist vote in the Assembly was 62%, compared to 29% for Alliance. Farry will pick up most of the other 9%, but if Unionists swing behind Easton, he'll win it.
He has a good chance, but I don't think he's a foregone conclusion. In 2019, there were only 4 candidates, the winning Farry (APNI), Easton (then DUP), the UUP and the Conservatives. Farry won with a 7% majority. The TUV and SF not standing in North Down is, thus, no change on last time. Easton standing as an independent with no DUP opposition is much the same as Easton standing for the DUP. The UUP got 12% last time: that's squeezable and probably more likely to go Alliance than Easton.
The 2022 Assembly results first preference votes were: Alliance 29% Easton 23% DUP 20% UUP 12% Green 7% TUV 4% SF 2% SDLP 2% others 2%
But note Alliance got more UUP transfers than the DUP.
I don't understand the appeal of Alliance, who seem like the left wing of the Lib Dems with knobs on.
They represent non-sectarian voting in Northern Ireland.
That's quite attractive to a large number of voters.
I see the tactical game of not standing has started in Northern Ireland. The DUP have stood aside for the UUP in Fermanagh & S Tyrone, while they're also not standing against their former member Alex Easton in North Down, who is standing this time as an independent. The TUV are also backing Easton.
Sinn Fein have dropped out of Lagan Valley, Mid Down and South Belfast, East Belfast, and North Down.
Easton has actually, a good chance in North Down. The combined Unionist vote in the Assembly was 62%, compared to 29% for Alliance. Farry will pick up most of the other 9%, but if Unionists swing behind Easton, he'll win it.
He has a good chance, but I don't think he's a foregone conclusion. In 2019, there were only 4 candidates, the winning Farry (APNI), Easton (then DUP), the UUP and the Conservatives. Farry won with a 7% majority. The TUV and SF not standing in North Down is, thus, no change on last time. Easton standing as an independent with no DUP opposition is much the same as Easton standing for the DUP. The UUP got 12% last time: that's squeezable and probably more likely to go Alliance than Easton.
The 2022 Assembly results first preference votes were: Alliance 29% Easton 23% DUP 20% UUP 12% Green 7% TUV 4% SF 2% SDLP 2% others 2%
But note Alliance got more UUP transfers than the DUP.
I don't understand the appeal of Alliance, who seem like the left wing of the Lib Dems with knobs on.
Those are odd results. How on earth do the SNP do better with tactical voting? Isn’t the entire anti-SNP voting pattern in Scotland driven by unionist tactical voting?
Labour did so badly in 2019, and the swings to them this time are so large, that anyone looking to vote tactically by looking at the result last time, or the notional result last time on the new boundaries, will be seriously misled, and so attempts to tactical vote could actually save a lot of incumbents from the Labour wave.
I'm not really sure how I should vote.
I've always lived in a safe Tory seat, it (or its predecessor seat) have been Tory since 1924 (auspicious!). So I don't tend to worry about whether my vote would or would not make a difference, it typically would not. In 2017 I voted Tory in it, because even though my vote would not be needed for the Tory to win, I felt my antipathy to Corbyn was such I should my vote where my mouth was, and to share in the culpability if things then all went pear shaped.
So on a similar basis I should perhaps vote Labour, as I do think it's time the Tories lose and nationally they are the game in town. They are also second in the seat, and I don't think I've actually voted Labour before in an election. But the LDs are much stronger locally. I voted for them in 2010 and 2015 hoping for a Lib-Con coalition. So on a tactical level it might be better to vote for them, unless the national tide is so strong that even without much local influence Labour retain the main anti-Tory vote.
I'll go with my gut on the day.
Can we ask which seat?
South West Wiltshire.
The wife is pissed off that her vote won’t really matter. I tried to suggest that it adds up to the national share and that helps frame the narrative, but I didn’t make much headway.
I see the tactical game of not standing has started in Northern Ireland. The DUP have stood aside for the UUP in Fermanagh & S Tyrone, while they're also not standing against their former member Alex Easton in North Down, who is standing this time as an independent. The TUV are also backing Easton.
Sinn Fein have dropped out of Lagan Valley, Mid Down and South Belfast, East Belfast, and North Down.
Easton has actually, a good chance in North Down. The combined Unionist vote in the Assembly was 62%, compared to 29% for Alliance. Farry will pick up most of the other 9%, but if Unionists swing behind Easton, he'll win it.
He has a good chance, but I don't think he's a foregone conclusion. In 2019, there were only 4 candidates, the winning Farry (APNI), Easton (then DUP), the UUP and the Conservatives. Farry won with a 7% majority. The TUV and SF not standing in North Down is, thus, no change on last time. Easton standing as an independent with no DUP opposition is much the same as Easton standing for the DUP. The UUP got 12% last time: that's squeezable and probably more likely to go Alliance than Easton.
The 2022 Assembly results first preference votes were: Alliance 29% Easton 23% DUP 20% UUP 12% Green 7% TUV 4% SF 2% SDLP 2% others 2%
But note Alliance got more UUP transfers than the DUP.
I don't understand the appeal of Alliance, who seem like the left wing of the Lib Dems with knobs on.
What's not to like about the left wing of the LibDems with knobs on?
In the 1997 Major lost 178 seats and got 30.7% of the vote. This was against Blair at his most formidable. But Major started at 343 seats compared with Sunaks 360. Even if the Tories lost the same again they would still be near 200.
Blair gained 146 seats with most of the rest going to the Lib Dem’s. Starmer repeating that is probably short of an overall majority. The Tories are going to be hammered, no doubt about it but Labour winning 476 seats from where they are? It’s ridiculous.
Think what has happened. The government locked down the country preventing people from going to work, they deployed the mrna, they allowed millions to settle in the country overwhelming public services, they began to implement net zero signifying the total destruction of the economy, they sent billions to Ukraine whilst preventing a peace deal leading to a great loss of life amongst the young and destabilising the West.
Comments
So when commentators say a party is polling well but isn’t enthusing voters…buy seats.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/30/bird-flu-case-h5n1-michigan
Rodney Connor had the support of the Democratic Unionist Party and Ulster Conservatives and Unionists - New Force[22] Following the close result Connor lodged a petition against Gildernew alleging irregularities in the counting of the votes had affected the result. However the Court found that there were only three ballot papers which could not be accounted for, and even if they were all votes for Connor, Gildernew would have had a plurality of one. The election was therefore upheld
Of course Fife NE was even closer in 2017, a mere 2 votes. Seems very harsh the losing LD candidate was not the candidate in 2019, when the LDs won, but maybe she did not wish to be.
The history of immigration to the United States was very different during its rise to hegemony.
"There is also confusion among voters about which parties are really likely to win their seat, especially given the new constituency boundaries. Slightly more people look to the implied results of the 2019 election, which is also what some tactical voting sites are recommending. But that could be sub-optimal, since public opinion has changed so much since 2019, and confused tactical voters could cancel each other out. If tactical voters use that as their guide, the Conservatives could lose another six seats. But the Conservatives could hold eights vulnerable seats, because people are using out-of-date snapshots of who the anti-Conservative challenger party is."
Translation:
In many seats where in 2019 the LDs came 2nd to the Conservatives and Labour 3rd, it's wrong to treat the LDs as the best choice for tactical votes to beat the Conservatives. If you simply make the tactical choice based on who came 2nd in 2019, then misplaced tactical votes enable the Conservatives to hold on to a net 2 extra seats compared to a result without any tactical voting.
For informed tactical choices, to determine which party is better placed to challenge the Conservatives you should take into account current polling where Labour is up about 12% on their 2019 result, and the LDs are down about 3%.
(Though Singapore and UAE, and Taiwan for that matter, or - actually - the Welsh sized state of Israel, might demur.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv22nzn27ddo
My guess is sub-2001 levels of turnout.
But does anyone really believe this? Tories down 300 seats? I don’t.
voted for BoZo's Brexit deal
voted that Rwanda is a safe country
tragic
Seems unlikely that Rishi Sunak will pull THAT off in 2024.
Of more interest is who the Conservatives have lost. If you take Barty as the extreme libertarian wing and Leon as the extreme anti immigration right wing, both now want the Tories to lose. As do all the moderates, TSE etc.
Finding the remaining Casinos nationally isn't a core vote strategy, it's a last man standing strategy. Which makes me think the predictions of 60ish seats for the Conservatives rings true.
Anyway it’s heartening that the Nick Palmer vision of a two party duopoly is still being resisted by some “confused tactical voters”.
However, if you are in a deliberative assembly where you actually take your seat, your role as a Sinn Féin legislator remains pretty limited. Wait for orders transmitted from the Árd Chomhairle - or perhaps transmitted down through it. Dissent equals expulsion.
The second is fucking insane
I've always lived in a safe Tory seat, it (or its predecessor seat) have been Tory since 1924 (auspicious!). So I don't tend to worry about whether my vote would or would not make a difference, it typically would not. In 2017 I voted Tory in it, because even though my vote would not be needed for the Tory to win, I felt my antipathy to Corbyn was such I should my vote where my mouth was, and to share in the culpability if things then all went pear shaped.
So on a similar basis I should perhaps vote Labour, as I do think it's time the Tories lose and nationally they are the game in town. They are also second in the seat, and I don't think I've actually voted Labour before in an election. But the LDs are much stronger locally. I voted for them in 2010 and 2015 hoping for a Lib-Con coalition. So on a tactical level it might be better to vote for them, unless the national tide is so strong that even without much local influence Labour retain the main anti-Tory vote.
I'll go with my gut on the day.
You're actually after the Sultans of Swingback.
"We could lose our democracy"
Easton has actually, a good chance in North Down. The combined Unionist vote in the Assembly was 62%, compared to 29% for Alliance. Farry will pick up most of the other 9%, but if Unionists swing behind Easton, he'll win it.
There is a 'tipping point' but we can't know for sure if it'll be reached or not. Defeat or oblivion, that is the question.
https://x.com/Ireland_Votes/status/1793940942417723406?t=vWSrTjCyte6ftfPc8Coq1g&s=19
Advantage in seats:
SF 10
DUP 4
All 3
TUV 1
The party agreements mentioned below might move a couple of seats here.
- People who migrate there were older than other countries (so Canada received less benefit) so they focussed on younger migrants
- People buy property there (it's seen as a safe haven from, say, China)
Result: high property prices.Zeihan I: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLDEv50zvzU
Zeihan II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXsEO_PsX1I
Instead, they thought that Liberal internal divisions on policy AND personality grounds, would scupper the new HMG shortly after it took office. Which did NOT happen, thanks to the leadership skills AND intestinal fortitude of the new PM, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.
But that's bad governance. Your paid to prepare and chart a course that improves things, however gradually, while seeing us through black swans. Instead they decided to indulge themselves at the expense of the country and thus when the bad times hit have had little to fall back on in the way of achievements or a positive story to tell. And thus are in Zugzwang.
Bit too much ‘it’s both sides to blame’ and no solutions.
And you're not taking issue with me, you're taking issue with what Electoral Calculus are saying in their study.
It's quite bizarre, but on current polling, the Conservatives will be losing 200+ seats, but gaining one or two in Scotland, because the SNP vote fall further than their own.
So I shall choose between LD or Green, who won't win.
I am concluding the public decided in 2022. Thoughts?
Trump in 2016: “She shouldn’t be allowed to run...If she wins, it would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis. In that situation, we could very well have a sitting president under felony indictment and, ultimately, a criminal trial. It would grind government to a halt.”
But he then went on to burble something about brexit causing violence in UK which seems unlikely as it has been several years now.
Yes, but what if we could?
Problem is that poll after poll after poll after poll keeps saying E.L.E. is happening. So as absurd as it looks, it does appear to be the will of the people.
Paddy Ashdown ate his hat. What are you going to eat?
But unlike the USA, the Great White North kept welcoming immigrants for decades after the USA largely closed it's gates for about half-century between 1920 and 1970.
One thing that was noticeable when I first visited Canada - and also the last time - is that immigrants are still a bigger deal north of the border than to the south. But less of a political issue; possible that's changing, but tend to doubt it.
There's definitely potential for the model to count tactical voting twice, if people in the polling sample are already making tactical voting decisions.
Either way I doubt what happens in the next 5 weeks will change anyone's opinion on the last 5 years.
They've had a go at restoring fortunes and morale, but it's been haphazard and uncertain, and staying with Truss might have been preferable in terms of attempted rebuild.
Do they have enough people fighting hard to stave off the worst case scenarios? Maybe, rage against the "It's their turn" theory of politics all we want, it does seem to be that way sometimes.
For one thing, a loud dog-whistle for neo-Nazis & similar.
NOW it's 2024 and me-me-me!
The 2022 Assembly results first preference votes were:
Alliance 29%
Easton 23%
DUP 20%
UUP 12%
Green 7%
TUV 4%
SF 2%
SDLP 2%
others 2%
But note Alliance got more UUP transfers than the DUP.
Which was certainly NOT how Americans circa 1850 (or a century either way) looked at it. For some reason they made a GREAT distinction between, for example, English-Welsh-Scottish Protestants and Irish Catholics, and also viz-a-viz Germans, Scandinavians, Italians, etc.
Hence the old (now defunct) American abbreviation WASP = White Anglo Saxon Protestant. With "Saxon" being understood as including Teutons of any ethnicity, provided they were NOT Catholics.
I don't believe a party could (possibly) win such a big victory more because the opponents lost than they win. However bad your opponent is you need to be able to take advantage of it. Whether people do so enthusiastically or not, if they do it means they had sufficient incentive to choose you over another option, rather than just punish the other lot.
Like in 2019 - Boris has to get some credit for the scale of the victory. There were unique factors around Brexit and Corbyn of 2019 was hindered in a way that turned out not to be the case for Corbyn in 2017, but the Tories still have to seize on those weaknesses to not only win, but to win big.
Blair gained 146 seats with most of the rest going to the Lib Dem’s. Starmer repeating that is probably short of an overall majority. The Tories are going to be hammered, no doubt about it but Labour winning 476 seats from where they are? It’s ridiculous.
Nope, still down.
That's quite attractive to a large number of voters.
The government locked down the country preventing people from going to work, they deployed the mrna, they allowed millions to settle in the country overwhelming public services, they began to implement net zero signifying the total destruction of the economy, they sent billions to Ukraine whilst preventing a peace deal leading to a great loss of life amongst the young and destabilising the West.