Zompist Bboard Again

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2026 5:11 pmDid you read anything mentioned above about strategic voting? At all?

I did but strategic voting is hardly foolproof. Unless anti-Reform voters in every constituency settle on the same alternative, they could easily end up electing many different parties without the majority necessary to keep Reform out. Suppose that Labour, the Greens, and the Conservatives all win twenty percent of seats while Reform wins forty percent.

malloc wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2026 7:15 pm Suppose that Labour, the Greens, and the Conservatives all win twenty percent of seats while Reform wins forty percent.

What if the Tories get 50% and Reform gets 400%? That would be really bad!

Here's the right-wing vote (UKIP + Reform + Tories) for the last ten years (measured at the beginning of each year)

2015 - 47%
2016 - 44%
2017 - 53%
2018 - 44%
2019 - 43%
2020 - 44%
2021 - 43%
2022 - 38%
2023 - 34%
2024 - 36%
2025 - 46%
2026 - 46%

Oh noes the right has been galloping toward GOD EMPEROR with a frightening unstoppable total gain of -1%.

Perhaps you are unaware that for all but the last year and a half or so of this period, Britain was run by the Conservatives. There was a whole thing, Brexit, it was in the papers. They already had their Trump, arguably two of them. And a head of lettuce was involved.

An actual question for the Brits after looking at the poll figures... I know Starmer is a bit of a zero and has been mostly Tory Lite, but... what did he do to throw away what popularity the party had?

zompist wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2026 11:51 pm An actual question for the Brits after looking at the poll figures... I know Starmer is a bit of a zero and has been mostly Tory Lite, but... what did he do to throw away what popularity the party had?

Now I'm thinking of the old joke where a boss at work tells an employee that he's fired, and the employee says, "But why? I didn't do anything!", and the boss says, "Yes, and that for the last ten years."

That's just my impression from following British politics from afar, though; the closest I've ever been to the country myself was the Republic of Ireland.

And I'm not sure Labour was that popular recently. It was more like that, in 2024, the Tories were really unpopular.

As you say, he's a bit of a zero. The way I've put it before is that his main ambition is to be a generic Prime Minister. What I mean by that is this: If, for instance, terrorists would occupy Tower Bridge tomorrow, his reaction would probably be to tell his underlings something like, "Go to the archives, dig up the contingency plan labelled 'Terrorists occupy Tower Bridge', and then do whatever is written in that contingency plan!" That is, basically the thing that a fictional generic Prime Minister who would be a minor character in an action thriller about terrorists occupying Tower Bridge would do.

You can beat a very unpopular incumbent that way, but it's no way to stay popular while you're the incumbent yourself.

malloc wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2026 4:20 pm So how likely would you consider Reform winning the next parliamentary elections? Based on everything I have read, they have gained an alarming degree of popularity over the past few years with a clear plurality of voters (around thirty percent) supporting them and that support is only increasing. It seems quite plausible to me that they could win an outright majority of seats simply by winning pluralities across the country. Even winning a plurality of seats would probably suffice to form a government, though, since the other parties could hardly form a coalition given their vast differences.

Don't underestimate the level of anger towards Nigel Farage. There is still massive anger over Brexit¹. On the effectiveness of tactical voting, let me stress this isn't a one-time thing. This has been a gradually strengthening feature of our elections for years, and there are multiple websites dedicated to working out and communicating the best vote. These people even do district council by elections⁴. People know by know that just because a certain party sent them a campaign leaflet with a misleading bar chart⁴. As to how likely it is they win the election, I have no idea. There are too many things that could happen before 2029. This time after the 79 election, the Liberal-SDP Alliance were polling 50%, and look where that got them⁵.

As to Zompist's question: the short answer is that almost noöne liked him in the first place, we just really hated the Tories. Because of this he promised nothing in the campaign except small changes that almost everyone could agree to. Then he got surprised that people actually wanted improvements to their lives⁷, and while there have been some positive changes⁸, they've being terrible at communicating them, and the first of these only started coming in after they'd started off with some really terrible ideas⁹, which they quickly half rolled back on. I mean Thatcher might well have been a disaster, but at least you knew what she was doing at any one point.

¹ Yes, that was 10 years ago, but the referendum based identities are very much still a thing. And I say this as someone who was too young to vote at the time, and while I might not be typical, I'm certainly not alone. There are enough small frictions introduced to constaintly remind us that² due to a certain Tory³ calling a referendum on something so stupid he thought noöne would actually vote for it without
² From the perspective of Remainers.
³ Remember we still hate them as well.
⁴ Which noöne cares about.
⁴ It's on my personal campaign leaflet bingo now.
⁵ As a clue: why do you think we have tactical⁶ voting
⁶ Yes, I know strategic voting is more correct, but the term that members of the public would recognise is tactical voting. That itself should tell you something about how known it is.
⁷ I know, what do these people think they want‽ Very ungrateful of them.
⁸ Right now bad landlords are quickly kicking out tennants before the ban on no-fault evictions comes into place, and new workers' rights legislation has come into force.
⁹ They've done two separate “the Tories left the country even worse than we thought so we have to raise taxes”¹⁰ events, and broke the spirit of their promises to do that, when they could have hust promised to reverse the unsustainable tax cuts the Tories did just before the election as a bribe/trap for Labour; almost the first thing they announced was limiting the winter fuel payment to the very poorest pensioners, when it was a large enough payment that more pensioners that that relied on it¹¹, and also other things, but you get thr idea.
¹⁰ As Kauṭilya said via your blog, this can only be done once per government.
¹¹ This was so they had time to prepare before the budget, but announcing the bad prominently, half backtracking then whispering thr good amd wondering why noöne noticed is on form for this government.

Lērisama wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2026 1:24 am On the effectiveness of tactical voting, let me stress this isn't a one-time thing. This has been a gradually strengthening feature of our elections for years, and there are multiple websites dedicated to working out and communicating the best vote. These people even do district council by elections⁴. People know by know that just because a certain party sent them a campaign leaflet with a misleading bar chart⁴. As to how likely it is they win the election, I have no idea. There are too many things that could happen before 2029. This time after the 79 election, the Liberal-SDP Alliance were polling 50%, and look where that got them⁵.

Thank you for that background information!

zompist wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2026 11:25 pmWhat if the Tories get 50% and Reform gets 400%? That would be really bad!

Here's the right-wing vote (UKIP + Reform + Tories) for the last ten years (measured at the beginning of each year)

2015 - 47%
....
2026 - 46%

Oh noes the right has been galloping toward GOD EMPEROR with a frightening unstoppable total gain of -1%.

Reform wouldn't even need a majority to take power, just a plurality of votes in a plurality of constituencies. That seems quite achievable even without dramatic improvement at the polls.

malloc wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2026 8:25 am

zompist wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2026 11:25 pmWhat if the Tories get 50% and Reform gets 400%? That would be really bad!

Here's the right-wing vote (UKIP + Reform + Tories) for the last ten years (measured at the beginning of each year)

2015 - 47%
....
2026 - 46%

Oh noes the right has been galloping toward GOD EMPEROR with a frightening unstoppable total gain of -1%.

Reform wouldn't even need a majority to take power, just a plurality of votes in a plurality of constituencies. That seems quite achievable even without dramatic improvement at the polls.

That same statement works pretty well for every single one of the five main parties. Yes you can be worried, but it is not the end of the world. I can tell you funny stories about Reform-run councils being completely incompetent if you like.

malloc wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2026 8:25 am

zompist wrote: ↑Thu Apr 09, 2026 11:25 pmWhat if the Tories get 50% and Reform gets 400%? That would be really bad!

Here's the right-wing vote (UKIP + Reform + Tories) for the last ten years (measured at the beginning of each year)

2015 - 47%
....
2026 - 46%

Oh noes the right has been galloping toward GOD EMPEROR with a frightening unstoppable total gain of -1%.

Reform wouldn't even need a majority to take power, just a plurality of votes in a plurality of constituencies. That seems quite achievable even without dramatic improvement at the polls.

One, you're moving the goalposts. I was responding to your fear-mongering that the right would get 60% of the vote.

Two, if they got a "plurality" they would have what's called a minority government, which rarely goes well. I suggest you learn more about how the British government works before making grand pronouncements.

Three, you completely ignored my point about the Conservatives, who were and are perfectly capable of making a mess of the country themselves.

malloc wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2026 8:25 am Reform wouldn't even need a majority to take power, just a plurality of votes in a plurality of constituencies. That seems quite achievable even without dramatic improvement at the polls.

Well, leaving aside the minor detail that, as I've already mentioned, enough people are repelled by R€f*rm to be prepared to vote tactically to deny them pluralities. This is a Big Thing in ths country.

Here's how it works, simplifying a bit. R€f*rm currently poll 30% in a constituency. People work out that a vote of 35% is enough to beat them, and preferable parties together poll 50%, with one party noticeably polling more than the others. Enough people switch their votes to this party so that its candidate wins. Result: R£f*rm 0, preferable parties: 1, and F@r@g€ pathetically complains of "a stitch-up" and tries to persuade the authorities that R€f*rm actually won. Is that clear enough?

alice wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2026 2:50 pmHere's how it works, simplifying a bit. R€f*rm currently poll 30% in a constituency. People work out that a vote of 35% is enough to beat them, and preferable parties together poll 50%, with one party noticeably polling more than the others. Enough people switch their votes to this party so that its candidate wins. Result: R£f*rm 0, preferable parties: 1, and F@r@g€ pathetically complains of "a stitch-up" and tries to persuade the authorities that R€f*rm actually won. Is that clear enough?

Sure but that depends on many people voting for a party they find repellent. Presumably many Labour voters would refuse to vote Conservative and vice versa.

malloc wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2026 3:51 pm

alice wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2026 2:50 pmHere's how it works, simplifying a bit. R€f*rm currently poll 30% in a constituency. People work out that a vote of 35% is enough to beat them, and preferable parties together poll 50%, with one party noticeably polling more than the others. Enough people switch their votes to this party so that its candidate wins. Result: R£f*rm 0, preferable parties: 1, and F@r@g€ pathetically complains of "a stitch-up" and tries to persuade the authorities that R€f*rm actually won. Is that clear enough?

Sure but that depends on many people voting for a party they find repellent. Presumably many Labour voters would refuse to vote Conservative and vice versa.

No, there’s two voting blocs; so e.g. Green or Liberal Democrat voters might vote Labor to increase its vote share in order to keep out Reform and the Conservatives. I think.

malloc wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2026 3:51 pm

alice wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2026 2:50 pmHere's how it works, simplifying a bit. R€f*rm currently poll 30% in a constituency. People work out that a vote of 35% is enough to beat them, and preferable parties together poll 50%, with one party noticeably polling more than the others. Enough people switch their votes to this party so that its candidate wins. Result: R£f*rm 0, preferable parties: 1, and F@r@g€ pathetically complains of "a stitch-up" and tries to persuade the authorities that R€f*rm actually won. Is that clear enough?

Sure but that depends on many people voting for a party they find repellent. Presumably many Labour voters would refuse to vote Conservative and vice versa.

Remember "vote for the crook, not the fascist".

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2026 4:27 pm

malloc wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2026 3:51 pm

alice wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2026 2:50 pmHere's how it works, simplifying a bit. R€f*rm currently poll 30% in a constituency. People work out that a vote of 35% is enough to beat them, and preferable parties together poll 50%, with one party noticeably polling more than the others. Enough people switch their votes to this party so that its candidate wins. Result: R£f*rm 0, preferable parties: 1, and F@r@g€ pathetically complains of "a stitch-up" and tries to persuade the authorities that R€f*rm actually won. Is that clear enough?

Sure but that depends on many people voting for a party they find repellent. Presumably many Labour voters would refuse to vote Conservative and vice versa.

No, there’s two voting blocs; so e.g. Green or Liberal Democrat voters might vote Labor to increase its vote share in order to keep out Reform and the Conservatives. I think.

This is exactly correct, except our Labour is actually spelled correctly. Part of the reason this works is that all of the three main progressive parties¹ are strong in different areas of the country³⁴, so there is a feeling that even if my Labour vote is tactical and I'd rather vote Lib Dem, in the neighbouring rural constituency they'll be some Labour voters doing the same thing for the Lib Dems.

¹ Or four in Soctland/Wales², because the nationalists usually count, although you'll sometimes see tactical voting working around the unionism-nationalism axis rather than than the left-right one, especially in Soctland; alice would know more than me about what is done over there.
² Northern Ireland is weird. Interestingly, tactical voting on sectarian lines is a thing in elections for Westminster, because they are the only ones using FPTP.
³ Admittedly for the Greens this used to be ‘Brighton,’ but they are now expanding this, especially at the expense of Labour.
⁴ To massively oversimplify, Labour never broke into certain parts of the countryside, which remained on the old two party system of Liberal/Tory, and the Lib Dems are still the main left wing party in most of these.

Ninja'd by Travis edit: the whole tragedy that leads to tactical voting being a phenomenon is that it's not even a crook you have you convince people to vote for, just a slightly different flavour of vague lefty feelings.

Edit edit: grievous capitalisation error.

Lērisama wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2026 4:43 pm
⁴ To massively oversimplify, Labour never broke into certain parts of the countryside, which remained on the old two party system of Liberal/Tory, and the Lib Dems are still the main left wing party in most of these.

Oh, interesting! Somewhat related to this, I once saw a claim that criticized the Lib Dems for supposedly presenting themselves as an alternative to the Tories that's Not Labour in Tory strongholds and as an alternative to Labour that's Not the Tories in Labour strongholds. What do you make of that?

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2026 4:51 pm

Lērisama wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2026 4:43 pm
⁴ To massively oversimplify, Labour never broke into certain parts of the countryside, which remained on the old two party system of Liberal/Tory, and the Lib Dems are still the main left wing party in most of these.

Oh, interesting! Somewhat related to this, I once saw a claim that criticized the Lib Dems for supposedly presenting themselves as an alternative to the Tories that's Not Labour in Tory strongholds and as an alternative to Labour that's Not the Tories in Labour strongholds. What do you make of that?

That's kind of their point. They definitely position themselves on the left, although this is kind-of-but-not-entirely¹ a post Brexit phenomenon. Their best election years were 2024 and 2005, and to a lesser extent 2010², which both fit a voter profile of ‘hate the Tories but not particularly enthusiastic about Labour and the Lib Dems are an option in my area,’ but I live somewhere where they've mostly been the opposition to the Tories, and it's entirely possible they do weird things in the odd Lib/Lab marginal constituency.

¹ The Lib Dems got a very rude awakening to what their voters thought of the Tories in 2015, and then were the largest non-hobbled-by-Jeremy-Corbyn's-personal-Euroscepticism remain party during Brexit, and it's kind of difficult to disentangle these two forces pushing them to seeing themselves on the left. There had however always been a left faction of various strengths, the ‘Dem’ in their name is of course from a Labour offshoot, and before the coalition disaster I'd say they tended to grouping more with Labour than the Tories, but it's difficult to say.
² Because their poor 2010 voters had no idea what was about to come, it being in the future.

Lērisama wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2026 4:43 pm ¹ Or four in Soctland/Wales², because the nationalists usually count, although you'll sometimes see tactical voting working around the unionism-nationalism axis rather than than the left-right one, especially in Soctland, Alice would know more than me about what is done over there.

That's "alice" to you I can't comment too much on tactical voting here in "Soctland", because it tends to be affected by local factors, and further complicated by the fact that outside of elections to Westmindter it isn't all that effective because of the voting system. Although it's a good bet that in general elections the onionism-nationalism "axis" is the main driver of tactical voting, spiced up by the parlous state of the Conservatives and the long-standing animosity between Labour and the SNP.

alice wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2026 3:08 pm

Lērisama wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2026 4:43 pm ¹ Or four in Soctland/Wales², because the nationalists usually count, although you'll sometimes see tactical voting working around the unionism-nationalism axis rather than than the left-right one, especially in Soctland, Alice would know more than me about what is done over there.

That's "alice" to you I can't comment too much on tactical voting here in "Soctland", because it tends to be affected by local factors, and further complicated by the fact that outside of elections to Westmindter it isn't all that effective because of the voting system. Although it's a good bet that in general elections the onionism-nationalism "axis" is the main driver of tactical voting, spiced up by the parlous state of the Conservatives and the long-standing animosity between Labour and the SNP.

Is there any serious risk of Reform making inroads in Scotland in the first place? Ok, having looked at the Wikipedia page for the next Holyrood election, I have my doubts that the Baron Offord of Garvel will have the voters throwing themselves at him, but what about the Westminster level?

Raphael wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2026 5:11 pm
Is there any serious risk of Reform making inroads in Scotland in the first place? Ok, having looked at the Wikipedia page for the next Holyrood election, I have my doubts that the Baron Offord of Garvel will have the voters throwing themselves at him, but what about the Westminster level?

Afterthought: Does anyone else think that "Malcolm Ian Offord, Baron Offord of Garvel" sounds like the name of the heroic protagonist of a very poorly researched political thriller set in Scotland which was written by an American author with far-right political views and little knowledge of Scotland?

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2026 11:18 am Afterthought: Does anyone else think that "Malcolm Ian Offord, Baron Offord of Garvel" sounds like the name of the heroic protagonist of a very poorly researched political thriller set in Scotland which was written by an American author with far-right political views and little knowledge of Scotland?

It's a British title (and a life peerage at that), not a Scottish title. The identity of surname and name of the barony would be unusual for a Scottish title, but is extremely common for a British title.