A massively insightful article. Thank you Ben. The only thing I’d add is whilst not going full bore trumpism on immigration, my take is even ordinary, normal moderate folk or the majority in my view, are unhappy nowadays with the levels of both illegal and legal information. Toughening up on both these areas and being seen to will help this government and undermine Reform. A cause I’d wholeheartedly support!
The problem with this is not that "ordinary, normal moderate folk ... are unhappy nowadays with the levels of both illegal and legal immigration", but that they are, by and large, misinformed about what the levels of both illegal and legal immigration ARE. This has been solidly documented in survey research.
And thus it is not a partisan claim (although it can nevertheless be a counterproductively partisan-sounding claim!) to say that "Farage is wrong". About some things, Farage is making quantifiable, straightforwardly empirical claims that are just simply incorrect.
For instance, it has been popular to explain the Brexit vote with people's personal experiences with excessive immigration levels. But of the twenty local authority areas with the fewest EU migrants in the UK, fifteen voted leave; and by contrast, of the twenty with the most EU migrants, eighteen voted remain. South Staffordshire had less than 1% of the population born in mainland Europe, but voted 78% leave. In other words, even living in a place with hardly any immigrants in it is not enough to stop people being "unhappy with the levels of both illegal and legal immigration". What they are unhappy about is not the actually existing level of immigration, but a vague, inchoate idea of there being too much immigration, and the latter cannot be made to go away by doing something about the former.
I think we saw the first sign of anti-Reform tactical voting in the Runcorn by-election. Reform were tipped as easy winners weeks ahead of the contest. Then the Conservative vote collapsed and the result was a lot closer than people expected.
I find Ben’s writings 75% very interesting and 25% exasperating. The 75% is the quantitative science based stuff. The 25% is his sometimes witty obiter dictums driven by his political prejudices. These are no doubt designed to lighten up his work but, apart from being annoying if one is of a different political persuasion, sometimes cast doubt on the objectivity of his psephological conclusions.
For instance, he assumes that Reform UK’s articulation of people’s concerns over immigration and the collateral effects of net zero can be assuaged by just telling them more confidently that they are mistaken; and also that he’s right that they are mistaken. “Farage is wrong” he says with no justifying reasons. This means that if Farage is in fact actually at least partly right, Ben’s prescription of going head on against Reform voters’ concerns would just leave the field free for Reform voters to double down in response to the political elite continuing to ignore them. Which in turn might make Ben’s predictions even more wrong as a feed-back loop is created. So - more objectivity and less playing to the liberal/centrist/left crowd would, I suggest, improve not only the appeal of these pieces to a wider spectrum of political opinion but possibly improve the reliability of his actual electoral analysis and forecast models too.
Thanks for your advice but in all honestly I’ll write the pieces I want to write on my personal Substack. If you want my unadulterated quantitative stuff please feel free to read my academic papers. I don’t want to pretend to my audience that I don’t have views - I try to be honest and open about them.
And while I do take your point Charles on perceived bias, I think it’s worth noting that the only predictions in this piece literally come from a model where I lay out exactly how different assumptions produce different results. Including a Reform majority! So yes understand people find my wry asides annoying if they don’t agree but the data is the data. Anyway hope you keep reading despite the exasperation ;)
Of course you’ll continue to write what you want to write, and you should. It would be very presumptive of me to suggest otherwise. I just wanted to point out the effect some of the wry asides have on me (not as a Reform UK supporter I should say, but someone more right of centre than left), and I assume similarly on a few others.
I'm pinning my hopes on the USA descending into such economic and political chaos under Trump that some potential Reform voters will be turned off populism. It would help if opponents of Reform did more to remind people of Farage's support for Trump.
(Living in a constituency with a One-Nation Tory MP, and the only serious challenger being Reform, I can see myself tactically votingTory in the next general election.)
Living in Australia and keeping an interest in UK politics I had been struggling to understand the state of play, being largely underwhelmed by the timidity of the Labour Government in tackling the real issues facing its supposed working base. This article was very illuminating and the results of Reform in local elections show they are not delivering and face oblivion unless a massive course correction occurs. The leadership seems infected with what I will call the Blair software program, it’s a virus that will eventually consume its host.
An excellent article Ben but the reality is even worse for Labour. When you leave out, kind of understandably, SNP and PC you miss a huge number of seats that Labour won but are highly unlikely to win again in ‘29. I’m struggling to see how Labour recover as they are. I can see a hung parliament next time, although with this ludicrous anti democratic FPTP the possibility of a Farage led government is more likely than ever. Looney Lite isn’t enough to beat Farage, the only way to beat him is to show him up for what he, and his ilk, really are. Of course I’m an SNP politician and in strictly narrow political terms the rise of a (semi) fascist political group would only make an SNP victory in Scotland more likely, but nobody in our party wants to see a Reform presence in Scottish politics. I’d wish Labour well in their fight to recover but fear their decline may well be terminal
"I guess in Canada sometimes blowing a dog whistle just gets you murdered by a pack of wolves."
1) f the Conservatives getting 41.3% to Carney's 43.8% in an election obviously driven by external factors (see Australia) is "murder," then how would you describe what happened to the NDP? I suggest you recalibrate.
2) Since when has Poilievre used a dog whistle? The principal criticism of him by pantywaists in the media is that he is too harsh and brazen for Canadians. But his platform is pretty mild, all things considered, and it was Carney's that had Fitch issuing a warning about reckless spending. I guess if you ever criticize an out-of-control immigration regime, you're beyond the pale?
I find Reform's rise genuinely scary. If the Conservative's do get their act together and start recovering ground, what do you think the effect of a Con-Reform stand-aside pact might be? Politically, I can't see anything that could stop them doing it at the last minute, and doing it at the last minute would be their best political move.
The Australian Liberal Party ( LP) is our equivalent of the UK Conservative Party. Confusing I know. The LP was formed out of the ruins of the United Australia Party a fiscal Conservative Party. The LP brought together all the non- Labor (correct spelling) Parties and groups. It remained fiscally conservative. In the early days that meant Keynesian, from the mid 80s onwards that had meant neoliberal or economic rationalist (choose the terminology of your choice). In the early days they were a mix of social conservatives and liberals. But from the mid-1990s the LP has become increasingly socially conservative. So these days the LP is really a Conservative Party. Confusing I know.
In Denmark, there are two parties corresponding roughly to the two wings of the British Liberal Democrats. One is called the Left (Venstre) and the other is called the Radical Left (Radikale Venstre). What's more, in Portugal, the main Thatcherite right-wing party is called the Social Democratic Party (Partido Social Democrata). Each of these cases involves a complex causal chain extending far into the past, knowing about which makes the names understandable. But they are undeniably funny to foreigners.
A massively insightful article. Thank you Ben. The only thing I’d add is whilst not going full bore trumpism on immigration, my take is even ordinary, normal moderate folk or the majority in my view, are unhappy nowadays with the levels of both illegal and legal information. Toughening up on both these areas and being seen to will help this government and undermine Reform. A cause I’d wholeheartedly support!
The problem with this is not that "ordinary, normal moderate folk ... are unhappy nowadays with the levels of both illegal and legal immigration", but that they are, by and large, misinformed about what the levels of both illegal and legal immigration ARE. This has been solidly documented in survey research.
And thus it is not a partisan claim (although it can nevertheless be a counterproductively partisan-sounding claim!) to say that "Farage is wrong". About some things, Farage is making quantifiable, straightforwardly empirical claims that are just simply incorrect.
For instance, it has been popular to explain the Brexit vote with people's personal experiences with excessive immigration levels. But of the twenty local authority areas with the fewest EU migrants in the UK, fifteen voted leave; and by contrast, of the twenty with the most EU migrants, eighteen voted remain. South Staffordshire had less than 1% of the population born in mainland Europe, but voted 78% leave. In other words, even living in a place with hardly any immigrants in it is not enough to stop people being "unhappy with the levels of both illegal and legal immigration". What they are unhappy about is not the actually existing level of immigration, but a vague, inchoate idea of there being too much immigration, and the latter cannot be made to go away by doing something about the former.
I think we saw the first sign of anti-Reform tactical voting in the Runcorn by-election. Reform were tipped as easy winners weeks ahead of the contest. Then the Conservative vote collapsed and the result was a lot closer than people expected.
Didn't McSweeney cut his teeth beating the BNP exactly by making life less shit for people?
And isn't the whole point of this that it's about what's you actually do on the ground, BEFORE you start talking about it?
What is your analysis of what Labour is actually doing?
I find Ben’s writings 75% very interesting and 25% exasperating. The 75% is the quantitative science based stuff. The 25% is his sometimes witty obiter dictums driven by his political prejudices. These are no doubt designed to lighten up his work but, apart from being annoying if one is of a different political persuasion, sometimes cast doubt on the objectivity of his psephological conclusions.
For instance, he assumes that Reform UK’s articulation of people’s concerns over immigration and the collateral effects of net zero can be assuaged by just telling them more confidently that they are mistaken; and also that he’s right that they are mistaken. “Farage is wrong” he says with no justifying reasons. This means that if Farage is in fact actually at least partly right, Ben’s prescription of going head on against Reform voters’ concerns would just leave the field free for Reform voters to double down in response to the political elite continuing to ignore them. Which in turn might make Ben’s predictions even more wrong as a feed-back loop is created. So - more objectivity and less playing to the liberal/centrist/left crowd would, I suggest, improve not only the appeal of these pieces to a wider spectrum of political opinion but possibly improve the reliability of his actual electoral analysis and forecast models too.
Thanks for your advice but in all honestly I’ll write the pieces I want to write on my personal Substack. If you want my unadulterated quantitative stuff please feel free to read my academic papers. I don’t want to pretend to my audience that I don’t have views - I try to be honest and open about them.
And while I do take your point Charles on perceived bias, I think it’s worth noting that the only predictions in this piece literally come from a model where I lay out exactly how different assumptions produce different results. Including a Reform majority! So yes understand people find my wry asides annoying if they don’t agree but the data is the data. Anyway hope you keep reading despite the exasperation ;)
I really appreciate your response (and your posts). And yes, I’ll almost certainly continue reading!
Of course you’ll continue to write what you want to write, and you should. It would be very presumptive of me to suggest otherwise. I just wanted to point out the effect some of the wry asides have on me (not as a Reform UK supporter I should say, but someone more right of centre than left), and I assume similarly on a few others.
I'm pinning my hopes on the USA descending into such economic and political chaos under Trump that some potential Reform voters will be turned off populism. It would help if opponents of Reform did more to remind people of Farage's support for Trump.
(Living in a constituency with a One-Nation Tory MP, and the only serious challenger being Reform, I can see myself tactically votingTory in the next general election.)
Making plans for Nigel, simply brilliant Ben
Living in Australia and keeping an interest in UK politics I had been struggling to understand the state of play, being largely underwhelmed by the timidity of the Labour Government in tackling the real issues facing its supposed working base. This article was very illuminating and the results of Reform in local elections show they are not delivering and face oblivion unless a massive course correction occurs. The leadership seems infected with what I will call the Blair software program, it’s a virus that will eventually consume its host.
An excellent article Ben but the reality is even worse for Labour. When you leave out, kind of understandably, SNP and PC you miss a huge number of seats that Labour won but are highly unlikely to win again in ‘29. I’m struggling to see how Labour recover as they are. I can see a hung parliament next time, although with this ludicrous anti democratic FPTP the possibility of a Farage led government is more likely than ever. Looney Lite isn’t enough to beat Farage, the only way to beat him is to show him up for what he, and his ilk, really are. Of course I’m an SNP politician and in strictly narrow political terms the rise of a (semi) fascist political group would only make an SNP victory in Scotland more likely, but nobody in our party wants to see a Reform presence in Scottish politics. I’d wish Labour well in their fight to recover but fear their decline may well be terminal
The Labour Party isn’t a liberal party it was firmed as a backlash against the liberal party and it shouldn’t be a liberal party
This is a fabulous piece. What is going to be the most efficient way of making sure PM McSweeney forcibly ingests it?
"I guess in Canada sometimes blowing a dog whistle just gets you murdered by a pack of wolves."
1) f the Conservatives getting 41.3% to Carney's 43.8% in an election obviously driven by external factors (see Australia) is "murder," then how would you describe what happened to the NDP? I suggest you recalibrate.
2) Since when has Poilievre used a dog whistle? The principal criticism of him by pantywaists in the media is that he is too harsh and brazen for Canadians. But his platform is pretty mild, all things considered, and it was Carney's that had Fitch issuing a warning about reckless spending. I guess if you ever criticize an out-of-control immigration regime, you're beyond the pale?
Really enjoyed your analysis! The Rob Ford quote particularly resonated...
I find Reform's rise genuinely scary. If the Conservative's do get their act together and start recovering ground, what do you think the effect of a Con-Reform stand-aside pact might be? Politically, I can't see anything that could stop them doing it at the last minute, and doing it at the last minute would be their best political move.
I've had a shot at raising awareness of this possibility myself https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HkLW7ZK4p0 , but I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the matter.
The Australian Liberal Party ( LP) is our equivalent of the UK Conservative Party. Confusing I know. The LP was formed out of the ruins of the United Australia Party a fiscal Conservative Party. The LP brought together all the non- Labor (correct spelling) Parties and groups. It remained fiscally conservative. In the early days that meant Keynesian, from the mid 80s onwards that had meant neoliberal or economic rationalist (choose the terminology of your choice). In the early days they were a mix of social conservatives and liberals. But from the mid-1990s the LP has become increasingly socially conservative. So these days the LP is really a Conservative Party. Confusing I know.
In Denmark, there are two parties corresponding roughly to the two wings of the British Liberal Democrats. One is called the Left (Venstre) and the other is called the Radical Left (Radikale Venstre). What's more, in Portugal, the main Thatcherite right-wing party is called the Social Democratic Party (Partido Social Democrata). Each of these cases involves a complex causal chain extending far into the past, knowing about which makes the names understandable. But they are undeniably funny to foreigners.
Many foreigners are confused by our Liberal Party for similar reasons.