This is opinion. So read it as such. But consider it please.
Obviously if you read this based on the title. I assume you oppose the Tories.
But if you are wondering why labour are so keen to manage expectations. There is a reason.
Campaign funding wise the Tories are estimated to be 19m ahead of labour. But honestly at the moment they are not spending a huge amount more.
We know the Tories are skilled at election manipulation. So there is genuine fear that the Tories plan to launch a campaign within the last few days.
I.E. when there is less time and funding to ensure fact checking is effective.
They know Starmer is more publicity aware then Corbyn was. He is able to play it in a way that dose not scare traditional Conservative voters.
They also know thanks to Boris, that the courts are unable to punish them for outright lies during any political campaign. And that Rishi is prepared to lie about and accuse civil servants of lying when challenged.
As huge as polling is against the Tories. All it would take is some dramatic claim against the party or Starmer. To convince Tory traditional voters to bite their tongue and vote Tory. While convincing left wing voters not to vote or to switch to 3rd party in seats where labour are the 1st or 2nd party.
The fact we know they have a huge amount of money unspent. Makes it clear they plan to launch something nearer the end of the election. And the only advantage of leaving it so late. Is it will limit the ability of the party to effectively react. Or fact checkers to be able to prove and distribute evidence of lies.
Please be prepared for this.
Everyone, just please go and vote if you are able to. It’s very little time out of your day and it’s only once every few years. Remember that you do need photo ID this time
If you are interested in tactical voting, something our electoral system unfortunately incentivises, then there is https://stopthetories.vote/ to vote against the Conservatives
duverger’s law is not actually a law at all, but a tautology. it has no actual predictive power, and hand-waves away evidence of instances where it has not turned out to be true.
Nobody, including Duverger, thinks that it’s an ironclad thing. That’s actually discussed in the link. It does appear to be a pretty accurate predictor of the behaviour of British elections though. The fact that there’s even an outside possibility that the Conservatives might not be one of the two biggest parties after this election is noteworthy.
I’m not sure I understand why you’re calling it a tautology. It doesn’t seem to fit any of the definitions I know of that word. It doesn’t fit the formal logic one since there are clearly imaginable scenarios in which it isn’t true (a parliamentary system in which more than two parties consistently emerge as the largest), and it doesn’t fit the literary one because it’s not a repeat of the same thing twice. Could you explain what you mean here?
it’s a critical rationalist examination that would label it tautological: it’s true and it’s always true because of how weasley the wording is. “people tend to do the right thing” is a tautological claim because every example of people not doing the right thing is already covered in theassive loophole opened with the term “tend”. there is no way to set up a test to disprove it.
Since there is a finite number of FPTP electoral systems, we can indeed test to disprove it by seeing how many of them are dominated by two parties. However woolly the wording “tend to” may be, if no FPTP systems were dominated by two parties then it’d be untrue. So that just leaves the question of what proportion should count for “tends to”. In my opinion, that’d be more than half at a minimum, but there will be different positions on that
what is the rate at which consolidation if parties occurs? if a fptp system exists with more than two parties, what reason do we have to believe it will consolidate, and when?
I don’t know, though I would be interested to read. Taagepera and Grofman’s 1985 work examined the elections of western Europe, the Anglosphere, and a couple of others across 1945-1980. They found that of the seven single-winner sytems, only France had a reliable third party (and of course, France does not use regular FPTP), and of the 15 multi-winner systems only Austria and Ireland did not have at least three. That is, of course, only correlation, and the authors have some other interesting points about major political issues within a country, but they do come down in favour of Duverger’s approach.
Some of the papers I’ve read on it have mentioned that particularly young democracies (such as Nigeria after re-establishing democracy in the late 90s, and I think the paper using that example was from the 2010s) do not appear to have settled into this pattern. On the other hand, in an older system like the UK, we see examples like the 1922 general election. The Liberals performed very badly in the prior election, Labour outperformed them in 1922, and the Liberals have never risen above third place since.
If Duverger’s law is completely off base, why do you think that the UK has such a strong two party donination? No party outside the top two has won a general election for a century, and prior to that it was the same story with one of the top two swapped out.
I didn’t say he’s off base. I said it’s useless. he’s not actually making a claim that I can use to predict anything.
Some of the voters are a bit scary too. I keep hearing a clip from LBC where some asks Starmer if he would’ve been in Corbyn’s cabinet.
Starmer kicked Corbyn out. That’s years ago. Why are you still trying to link the two people still now.
Finally, who are the 20% that would still vote Tory? Rich business people with no ethics?
Why are you still trying to link the two people still now.
Because that is where the Tories are likely spending some money. They keep bringing up the he supported Corbyn. They and the right wing of labour spent in the last election to destroy his reputation. So the Tory party sees it as a cheap attack to push the idea over social media.
I am a little disappointed that it is not answered with, how Rishi was willing to support a PM candidate with a racist publications in the media and later willing to lie to parliament to prevent their ability to shut down his policies.
It’s just getting more and more difficult to feel okay voting Labour. I know splitting the left wing vote isn’t tactically smart, but voting for labour isn’t even a left wing vote anymore :(
(I’m still pro-tactical voting, I’m just doing it with more frustration than ever before)
There will literally be Tory trolls/bots pushing this narrative to split the Labour vote. Get the Tories out, then push Labour for PR, hard, to keep Tories out of unjust power.
This is the exact same problem in the United States and even Canada right now. It’s leading me to believe it’s the inevitable conclusion of a first past the post system.
FPTP has to go, but the further right the government, the hard it is to push them for it. A right Labour is better odds then any Conservative flavor, and it’s not like the Conservatives are moving left right now.
PR (well, some forms of it) is less bad than FPTP but it’s not a panacea. Most PR systems have the problem that they give disproportionate power to unprincipled centrist parties that can make or break coalitions, at the expense of parties with more distinct agendas. This can lead to situations where the centrists are always there, regardless of how the election went, like the Free Democrats in Germany for many years. So if you want the LibDems to hold the whip hand, go for PR, since that result is as inevitable as the emergence of two big parties under FPTP.
I’d enjoy that scenario as a Lib Dem member
What I wanted hasn’t been implemented.
I want Mixed Member PR (Germany and New Zealand have this), but with score/range voting instead.
I used to be a party member but left years ago when it got rough! Maybe getting back into politics more directly is the way to go: changing parties from within!
I’m just doing it with more frustration than ever before
Pretty sure that represents the labour lead atm. Def folks wanting to vote against tories rather then for labour. Unfortunately it also leave the Tories with an open attack vector. They just need to time the right attack to dramatically split the left vote in Lab seats where they are still 2nd.
It’s just getting more and more difficult to feel okay voting Labour.
Why? The Tories are barreling towards literal fascism, anything that will stop that is good. Could Labourbe better, absolutely, but it is not worth falling into what America has become just to spite them for being centralist and unambitious.
Some of Labour’s recent policies (and stances on Palestine, trans people, etc) are scary and harmful. It’s emotionally hard having to vote for a party that has spoken about removing your rights.
Pragmatically though: I know voting Labour will still shift things towards being better, even if that “better” is way worse than I wanted, and I would never begrudge anyone for voting for them. There’s always more we can do in-between elections anyway
Edit: This is rambly and long and probably wrong, it’s not worth anyone’s time to read. Sorry.
I’m not trying to persuade you to vote Labour (I’m not voting them), but isn’t their current trans policy a slight improvement over now? Only needing approval and a diagnosis of dysphoria from one doctor, not having to live openly as your preferred gender for two years.
Its still not remotely good enough, and will continue to see people die, but hopefully fewer people. Its a tiny little crumb. Like, the UK is transphobic to a shocking extent. And it would be good if the supposedly left-wing party properly stood for minority rights, instead of being bellends on refugees and trans people.
To be honest, this isn’t even really directed at you, I’m mainly just talking it through for myself, a proud socialist questioning my gender. Sorry.
Tories have been trying to fight this election on immigration and trans people, as a replacement for their Boris and Brexit campaign in 2019 that beat Corbyn. Starmer has seemingly been trying to avoid giving them any ammo in this regard.
But Labour has a massive lead in the polls, even if it took a 5% hit by properly defending trans people, it could easily afford it, rather than making the climate even more unsafe. Maybe this policy is a tiny step towards that?
I’ve always maintained that even voting for the lesser of two evils is the least you can do, basic harm reduction, while then protesting and direct action and everything else on any other day.
But with Labour so far ahead, how important is it that they win every Tory marginal? But what matters more, stopping Labour from having the biggest majority ever, or pushing the Tories into 3rd? And every seat Labour takes from the Tories pushes them closer to the LibDems.
I saw Richard Drax predicted to lose Dorset South for the first time, and that filled me with such joy that I wouldn’t even care if he lost it to Starmer himself. Fuck the Tories.
The rivers and the oceans are full of actual shit.
I don’t know. I don’t know what I’d vote in a predicted Tory-Labour marginal. Thankfully I live in a Labour safe seat and am free to campaign and vote with my conscience.
No need to apologise, I agree :)
I’m also in a labour safe seat, and grateful I can vote my conscience, I’m just sad other people aren’t so fortunate. Labour are saying some tiring stuff now to win over the Conservative voter base: it’s the one time where I hope that politicians lie. Let’s hope that Labour uses their win for good things, as they’ve promised in previous years.
May we all get to vote for more positive things within the next decade 💚
jokes on them I already sent in my postal vote
Hard agree. They gutted the electoral commission while gerrymandering like crazy. They have an army of right wing boomers brow beating anyone they come across into the ground with their “the two parties are identical in every single way” BS (all claiming to be left wingers while doing so, of course). If labour had been betting on things, using insider knowledge, there would be arrests already. The Met police went to the most secure and videoed place in the country (10 downing street) and lied, telling the whole nation that there was no evidence of the parties they were having during lockdown. Etc etc etc.
The very wealthy people and powerful people they represent won’t go quietly, if at all, and they have no morals.
Starmer purged the left wing from his party, he can’t be surprised when they don’t vote for him.
Agreed. But its not about starmer being good. Its about being less bad then the Tories.
FPTP is an utter fuck over of an electoral system. That leaves very few places where voting 3rd party or even not voting is not a vote for Tory rule.
Its unpleasant but a simple fact that evil is quantifiable. When your choice is limited via the voting system. Refusing to vote for the lesser of 2 evils basically means you support goes to the greater.
The fight to resist evil is never wholly successful, but always necessary.
Maybe, or maybe they realise how screwed they are and will just save some of the cash for a future election.
That is the definition of under estimation. Any theory can be wrong. But when you compare the cost of being prepared. Vs the cost of another 5 years of Tory rule. Its rather daft to ignore the money being there. Especially when you consider previous election manipulations the Tories and their right wing media supporters have managed.
If you’re worried about this, the best way to prevent it is to donate to and volunteer with the Labour party. Yes, there’s a few places where voting for a different party is the better anti-Tory tactic if that is your priority, BUT:
- it’s hard to know for sure who the best vote is because the various tactical tools, polls, etc., often don’t agree
- very nearly everywhere Labour is your best bet anyway
deleted by creator
under estimate
opiniin
tittle
Boris. That
rishi
prepared to lies about
lieing
starmer
Amd the only adva tage
late. Is it
yeah when a visually impaired person types on a tablet errors happen. I am now at my larger PC Monitor and planning to fix.
But remember. Grammar and spelling do not relate to the value of an opinion. They are not related to intelligence but judging folks for it is.
They are not related to intelligence
O_o
Don’t be a muppet all your life, mate. Dyslexia, op’s sight condition and a myriad of other conditions are not linked to intelligence but can result in poor grammar when written, especially as we’re writing internet comments and not books.
Dyslexia, op’s sight condition and a myriad of other conditions are not linked to intelligence but can result in poor grammar when written
Stupidity can and often does, also result in poor grammar.
If you’re going to comment on stupidity and causation, you should be able to realise that two different things can coincidentally create the same effect. What you’re doing here is equivalent to seeing people commenting in English and assuming that they’re all from the UK because of that, when they could actually just as easily be from another English-speaking country or have learnt English as a second language. Sure, a lot of English-speakers are from the UK, but if someone then says “no actually I’m Australian” and your response is to insist that “English speakers are often from the UK”, you’re being wilfully ignorant.
you should be able to realise that two different things can coincidentally create the same effect
I stated a second, different cause in addition to the cause OP presented and yet you’re telling me there can be two different causes of the same effect. OP is the person you need to be telling. It’s OP who doesn’t seem to understand that the existence of dyslexia doesn’t impact the quality of language skills of stupid people.
Why do you feel the need to keep insisting that stupidity can cause bad writing when nobody is actually arguing otherwise? What everyone is saying is “bad writing does not imply stupidity”. Those two statements are separate things.
Dysgraphia and Dyslexia are related to a failure within a certain section of the brain. Intelligence relates to the minds ability to take information from one domain of knowledge and apply it to others. IE the brains ability to adapt to new situations.
Language skills are a useful tool. Not a requirement for intelligence.
Language skills are a useful tool. Not a requirement for intelligence.
Stupid people tend to have poor language skills.
Stupid people also often overcompensate trying to make others look stupid.
others looks
sremoved**
Stupidity can and often does, also result in poor grammar.
https://feddit.uk/comment/10214313
You’re missing a comma. See how petty this is?
They also tend to assume anyone with lower language skills are stupid.
Because they lack the ability to adapt to more varied information gathering methods.
Because they lack the ability to adapt to more varied information gathering methods.
LOL
What is it you’re expecting to find at the bottom of this hole you’re digging?
But not all people with poor language skills are stupid.
I didn’t say they were.
Was hoping we could leave the pedantic, snarky replies at Reddit.
It’s the internet, who gives a fuck about someone’s spelling…
Agreed. My grammar is bad. I am always happy when folks politely point out errors. Or ask to clarify things it confuses.
But I am also visually impaired. So situations like this where every obvious typo is pointed out. I judge as being someone looking to reinforce their own feeling of lacking intelligence.
Also, when you consider intelligence is a measure of a minds ability to adapt. Failing to interpret based on small errors in spelling etc. Is far from an indication of higher intelligence.
Yeah, spelling is just one form of intelligence.
I feel sorry for anyone who thinks it’s worth bragging about though, there are so many forms of intelligence/talent that are far more valuable than spelling.
It is one I respect. The written English language is so filled with contradictions keeping track is impressive.
But judging people for not doing so. Is a bit like me as a Retired Software engineer judging folks who fail to understand C++ etc. It says more about my inability to recognise peoples use then the person I am judging.
Well done at retiring at 53!
disability
Ah. Sorry
Yeah, spelling is just one form of intelligence.
One of the lowest.
