The political scientist Timur Kuran coined the term “preference falsification” in 1987. Earlier today he sent this tweet:
Musk’s purchase of Twitter was a political game changer. Also important was his decision to hide people’s “likes” from other users. This diminished preference falsification on X. It also boosted the apparent popularity, and thus the circulation, of un- or anti-woke posts.
Tony Blair greatly increased the ease of postal voting in UK elections by means of the Representation of the People Act 2000. That Wikipedia article says the Act made only “minor amendments”. They were not minor in their effects and nor were they intended to be. Whoever edited the Wikipedia article on Absentee voting in the United Kingdom got it right:
After the introduction of on-demand postal voting in the UK, there has been a massive uptake in postal voting. Whilst in 2001 1.8 million postal ballots were distributed to voters, this has increased to more than 8 million postal ballots by the UK 2017 general election and represented one in every five ballots cast in 2019 United Kingdom general election.
Labour did this because they thought it would help them win elections, of course. Did it? Perhaps not. While it did increase turnout, which historically has usually helped Labour candidates, the increase in turnout was particularly strong among pensioners, who tend to have mobility problems that make it harder for them to get to the polling station in person. Pensioners skew Conservative. The change also had other effects, of which more below.
I can certainly see a reason for some mechanism to be available to let people arrange to vote by post (or vote by mail as the Americans call it) when circumstances make them unable to vote in person. But absentee voting unquestionably degrades the secret ballot. This brings us back to the issue of preference falsification. As the same Wikipedia article says,
In the United Kingdom a 2016 government inquiry found that postal voting “was considered by some to be the UK’s main electoral vulnerability and to provide the ‘best’ opportunity for electoral fraud… Evidence was presented of pressure being put on vulnerable members of some ethnic minority communities, particularly women and young people, to vote according to the will of the elders… the possibilities of undue influence, theft of postal votes and tampering with them after completion were all still risks.” The government responded by saying it would consider the recommendations on postal voting.
Presumably the government (by then a Conservative one) did consider the recommendations. It evidently decided it wanted more postal voting anyway. Probably that was to get the pensioner vote.
However something changed in the 2024 election that I speculate might lead Labour to fall out of love with postal voting. Of course Labour won that election with a massive majority – but there were some nasty surprises for individual Labour MPs, many of them quite prominent.
Wes Streeting, the Secretary of State for Health, had a majority of 5,218 in the 2019 election. His majority in the 2024 election was 528. The person who came near to unseating him was a Muslim Independent who campaigned on the issue of Gaza.
Shabana Mahmood, the Secretary of State for Justice, had a majority of 28,582 in the 2019 election. Her majority in the 2024 election was 3,421. The person who came near to unseating her was a Muslim Independent who campaigned on the issue of Gaza.
Jess Philips had a majority of 10,659 in the 2019 election. Her majority in the 2024 election was 693. The person who came near to unseating her is a Muslim member of George Galloway’s Workers Party who campaigned on the issue of Gaza.
Jonathan Ashworth had a majority of 22,675 in 2019. His constituency was considered a safe seat for Labour, but he lost it in 2024 to a Muslim Independent who campaigned on the issue of Gaza.
There are several other similar examples.
Labour knows full well that its current majority is a mile high but an inch thick, as the saying goes. If Reform eats the Tories, or vice versa, I think that Labour will look with fresh eyes at the issue highlighted in that 2016 report:
Evidence was presented of pressure being put on vulnerable members of some ethnic minority communities, particularly women and young people, to vote according to the will of the elders.
I noticed a long time ago that “likes” (or whatever) on social media posts went in vast numbers, and almost at once, to leftist posts – regardless of how inane they were. This either means that leftists truly are a hive mind – and instantly know when one of them has written something and all “like” it no matter how badly written it is – OR the “likes” are fake.
Like Mr Musk, I think the latter is true.
As for voting in the United Kingdom – like the Democrats in the United States, Labour in the United Kingdom is against anti voting fraud measures and, unofficially, in support of illegal immigrants voting – or people voting on their behalf. This is the sort of thing that “France 24” and the rest of the international Corporate State media call “false claims” when President Trump CORRECTLY says it about Banana Republics such as California.
How else can Labour win the July 2029 General Election? The United Kingdom economy and society will, by then, be much like how Venezuela is now – and the only way that the socialists (international media and education systems please note – the problem with Venezuela is NOT “mismanagement” or even “corruption”, the problem is SOCIALISM) can win in Venezuela (or Brazil) is by election rigging.
So, if Labour is to win in July 2029, the election system of the United Kingdom must be changed to resemble that of Venezuela – i.e. the election must be rigged. Otherwise people, of all ethnic groups, will vote Labour out of office – seeing the economic and social collapse around them.
Reform is primarily a threat to Labour. There has been very little movement in the polls since the General Election except for Reform going up 7-9% and Labour going down by a similar amount.
The main threat to the Conservative Party is the Conservative Party.
Lee Moore – agreed.
There still seems to be no clear commitment to conservative policies – such as pulling out of the European Convention on Human Rights (which does NOT defend basic liberties – quite the contrary).
A commitment to less government spending, for example an end to “Overseas Aid”, lower taxes, less expensive energy (an end to the “Net Zero” agenda), an end to mass immigration, and an end to the “Diversity and Inclusion” agenda of censorship, persecution, and indoctrination, is vital – but, again, where are the clear policy commitments to do these things?
Labour are going full head-on to completely destroying the electoral system. With the full support of other parties they intend to give the vote to foreigners and children.
jgh writes, “Labour are going full head-on to completely destroying the electoral system. With the full support of other parties they intend to give the vote to foreigners and children.”
To be fair to the Tories, they have consistently opposed both giving the vote to more foreigners than already have it – Irish people and citizens of some Commonwealth nations already have it as a historical holdover – and giving the vote to 16 year-olds. Labour are indeed pressing forward with votes at 16, but they have rowed back quite sharply on votes for foreigners. Doing so was in Labour’s 2019 manifesto, on page 82 to be precise. It was deceptively worded as “giving full voting rights to all UK residents” because they knew even then that the proposal would be particularly resented by working class voters in formerly Labour heartlands. As late as May 2023, Labour were considering plans to let EU nationals vote. But a year later, in May 2024, this story appeared in the Telegraph: Starmer rules out votes for EU citizens in pledge U-turn.
Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but perhaps the UK should turn over its nuclear weapons to a non-Muslim State…before its too late and the Mullahs finally get their bomb(s)!
I live in the US so this is a very parochial suggestion as I will be among the Mullah’s first targets.
This also ties in with the grooming gang inquiry. Raja Miah who campaigned in Oldham in the council elections is claiming that pressure was put on the police to ignore the grooming gangs because of the block vote promised to Labour politicians. https://www.redwallandtherabble.co.uk/protecting-pakistani-rape-gangs-a-masterclass-in-how-institutions-hide-their-failures/
> Because that’s how politics is played in Labour Party controlled towns like Oldham where the all powerful Muslim block vote determines who wins and loses. The question is: are we willing to keep playing it when children’s lives are at stake?
“In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.” — Lee Kuan Yew
Although Labour are infamous for pandering to the Muslim vote, the shameless pandering of Tories to Hindus at the last election is almost as bad. One of the many reasons I don’t see myself voting Tory ever again.
Mile wide and an inch thick. Height and thickness are pretty much the same thing.
On the matter of Islam – there are obvious contradictions between Islamic philosophy and leftist “Critical Theory” Marxist “Woke” doctrine – for example on abortion and homosexual acts, both of which Islam opposes. However, some leading figures manage to be Muslims and leftists at-the-same-time – how they reconcile the obvious contradictions in their minds, I do not know.
“How they reconcile the obvious contradictions in their minds, I do not know.”
Having known left leaning people personally and following things that left leaning people say on line, it seems to me that they live in a make believe world that only exists inside their heads. Rather than basing their worldview on facts, some that support their worldview and some that don’t, they cherry pick only the supporting ones and totally disregard the rest, using censorship if they can. We can all be guilty of such cherry picking of course, but it is better to at least try to avoid doing so and to adjust your opinions to accommodate inconvenient facts.
Stonyground – you make some interesting points in your comment, a lot to think about.
There is also a simpler way to reconcile the contradictions – support homosexual acts, “trans” sexual mutilation including for children, abortion and so on, but only for “infidels” – as ways of weakening said infidels. However, that may be too cynical.
You can bring a lot of disparate people under one tent, if you pick the right tent.
The current tent is “we’re not like those evil far-righties.”
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
(But only until my main enemy is vanquished. Then all bets are off. That’s why it’s a very distrustful coalition.)
Bobby, Paul,
You are both rational folks. It perhaps means you have an intellectual problem understanding the irrational.
– Lewis Carroll
Impossible things (singular) is something but consider impossible conjunctions of seperate things. The likes of Owen Jones* and his rantings at The Guardian or consider the “Queers for Palestine” demos. Or the bizarre idea that an anatomical male can identify as a lesbian.
Yeah, let’s go with that last one… Many folks disagree with trans ideology for a number of reasons. Some moral, some about the idea of it being antithetical to trad values and some because generally the end result is someone who looks like a tragically bad drag-act. Whilst I understand those points they seem less important to me than the over-arching idea that trans ideology is denying logic itself. Logic is about true or false, yes or no, 1 or 0. It is the basis of all rational reasoning and therefore civilization. Why do you think trans “activists” are so keen on labeling themselves, frequently with great haughtiness, as, “non-binary”?
Trans ideology (and it’s assorted baggage train) is not about challenging “traditional values” or anything as mundane as that! It is an assault upon reason itself. It is not just trans the idea of sex or gender but trans logic, reason and all of that stuffy old nonsense. Note the “trans” prefix comes from Latin meaning “beyond”, “across from”. Hence transfinite numbers – the Sunday name for infinite numbers and other terms like that. You can see where the insufferable high-mindedness comes from?
There is an “intellectual” congruence between the followers of Muhammed, the believers in perfect communism and those who claim to be a girl even if they have a five o’clock shadow and a penis. They all believe that reality and logic are transcended by their own desires. That reality is what they want, not what is.
*Who makes George Monbiot sound (almost) sane.
Might have been said before, indoctrination into a cult requires the acceptance the patently untrue to shed any future appeal to reason by the indoctrinated.
Hence the necessity to believe in trans identity by the in-group.
Easy test; why trans-woman for a male, trans-man is just as indicative.