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.
There are zero circumstances. Zero. Where mail in ballots / postal voting is justified. Voting should be in person, in secret, with verification, at the designated place, on the designated day. That’s it. If you’re resident outside the country. Tough. If you’re in the military and stationed abroad. Tough. If you’re infirm or otherwise unable to get to the polling station. That’s how the cookie crumbles.
Anything else invites fraud whether by harvesting, coercion, or otherwise and history has shown inevitably ends up being the thin of the wedge that leads to further degradation of the vote. It also should not be *easy* to vote. I don’t want voting to be easy. There should be some minimum hoop to jump through. If you don’t care enough or aren’t motivated enough to do that, then you shouldn’t be voting.
@BlindIo,
Disenfranchising people serving their country abroad would not be justified in my opinion. For those residing abroad by choice it’s essentially a political call (and the call might differ depending on the type of election). But the solution for both groups is to set up rigorously-run polling stations on military bases, in embassies, consulates, etc., and to guarantee the security of the whole chain from there to wherever the votes are counted. That isn’t beyond the capacity of any developed country.
For those too ill or disabled to get to polling stations I wouldn’t be comfortable with the idea of basically denying them the vote, so some solution has to be found. Th numbers should be too low to be weaponised effectively for fraud anyway. The key thing is to set a pretty high threshold for being considered genuinely unable to vote at the polling station.
This is how that goes. Happy Acres nursing home has 200 residents. The helpful nursing staff (all unionized) help the “low mobility” residents apply for mail in ballots, then “help” them complete the ballots. Hey look they all voted for Bo Jiden! He must have really resonated with the residents of Happy Acres!
Repeat this up and down the country in nursing homes, hospitals, etc. If the process can be exploited it will be exploited. The risk is low and the chance of success high.
The only, the only way to stop it being exploited is to remove every practical possibility. In person, with verification, at the designated place, at the designated time.
I would also add that the military should not be in a position to vote for those who may need to send them to war. This is particularly true in the U.S. where the President is in the chain of command. Why not let them vote for their commanding officer while we’re at it.
Nick M. – yes I may be overthinking all this, our opponents may just be crazy (incredibly powerful but still crazy) people whose beliefs are full of contradictions – such as Mr Owen Jones.
Ben – if we do not “play along” we will be put in prison (to be abused by gangs) – the state, and its Blarite judges, have made that very clear.
And appealing to the 1st Amendment will not work in the United Kingdom – as we do not have rights AGAINST the state (the only rights we have are to welfare benefits and public services – and then only if the state does not take a dislike to us).is
Jeremy Bentham “rights are nonsense, natural rights are nonsense on stilts” is very much the British establishment position when talking about rights AGAINST the state.
And since Blackstone it has been held that Parliament can do anything to us, anything at all. Right to keep and bear arms? No such thing here. Indeed Parliament, or the most lonely official – if given delegated powers to do so, could make us crawl on the ground and lick their boots. Remember the Covid lockdowns? Medically useless, they were most certainly not about “saving lives” – but they were a useful experiment to show what the public would put up with without fighting back – and the answer is, with-intense-propaganda from the media (the same people who brought us the Covid lockdown propaganda, brought us “Liz Truss crashed the economy” and a Legion of other lies) anything-at-all. The public will even, if fed enough agitprop, support, strongly support, the people oppressing them – and viciously condemn any dissenter. Do not whip us with whips – whip us with scorpions.
“What can we do about this?” – nothing before July 2029 (the next General Election), we can not do anything about it. Which is why wealthy people, the people who can, are leaving.
“But Paul, members of a certain groups believe they can rape our children” – so what? Sadly that does not change any of the above – the system is as it is.
My father is in a nursing home. He has a form of dementia and I had him declared legally incompetent. WV state law says someone who is incompetent can’t vote, so I had him removed from the voter rolls. He was put back on by some advocate who said the Americans With Disabilities Act says they can’t be disenrolled unless the court order declaring him legally incompetent specifically says he can’t vote and thus “educated” the county commissioner. So not only did he get put back on the rolls, it was done without my knowledge despite being his legal guardian and conservator. The man can’t legally decide what he wants to eat for lunch, but he gets to pull the lever to decide who to vote for.
We really need a reset in voting laws, but like so many things it will never happen because the parties think they can manipulate the situation to their own favor.
As mentioned, “trans-” means “beyond, other side, gone past and left behind”. So, transhumans have gone past being human, have left being human behind, is no no longer human. So, clearly, a transwoman is somebody who has gone past “woman”, and left “woman”ness behind, and is now no longer woman. That is the only meaning you can get from their insistance on the “opposite” being “cis-” – this side of, within, not departed from.
Steven R – yes the voting laws of many States are a mess, and so are well meaning pieces of legislation such as the “Americans With Disabilities Act” – which President George Herbert Walker Bush supported, because like tax increases (and so on) he thought in terms of Good Intentions – not RESULTS.
As for the immigration and natural increase of hostile groups – it is not just the United Kingdom. Even Japan, on the other side of the world, is starting down this grim road – Japanese television is full of stories about what lovely people Islamic immigrants from Pakistan and other places are, the propaganda is incredibly crude – but as the Japanese people still trust the media and have no practical experience of these matters… the propaganda may be effective.
The international community has no special hatred for the United Kingdom – the international community hates ALL nation states and wishes to utterly destroy them (in the name of Diversity and Inclusion). And the ruling establishment of most (yes most) Western nations follows the international community line.
AFT: How are you going to provide a secure polling station in Bangkok for that one person to vote for his town councillor in Whitby North, and ensure that ballot paper gets to the count by 10am Friday monrning?