There is a ritual as old as democracy itself, and it has nothing to do with voting. It takes place in the days before polling, in the offices of think tanks, the studios of broadcasters, and the columns of political magazines. It is the ancient art of expectation management — the careful calibration of what counts as success and failure, conducted not in the interests of accuracy but of narrative. This week, with the May 7th elections bearing down upon us, we have been treated to a masterclass of the genre.
Peter Kellner, former president of YouGov and a man whose estimable intelligence I have no interest in disputing, has published a guide to the upcoming elections in Prospect. It is admirably readable and contains much of interest. But embedded within it is a paragraph about Reform that repays close attention, because it illustrates with almost pedagogical clarity how the expectation game is played.
Kellner deploys the Rallings and Thrasher model to suggest that if Reform win 1,400 seats, they will be “sunk in gloom,” and that anything short of 2,000 should indicate that they are “slipping back.” He frames sub-2,000 as the threshold of adequacy. The implication is clear: a party that currently holds two councillors among the seats being contested should apparently consider 1,400 gains a cause for institutional mourning.
Only?
Let me be direct: I would be happy with 1,000 seats. I would be delighted with anything north of 1,200. And I say this not from false modesty but from an honest reading of the data, weeks of campaigning on the ground, the political landscape, my own politically pessimistic nature, and, perhaps most importantly, from a sceptical eye on the baseline figure Kellner has chosen to make his arithmetic work.
Read the whole thing.
The press treatment of Trump for the past ten years has been this way entirely. Set fake expectations, bemoan their failure, discuss how the Right is tiring of him because of these failures . . .
Sadly, they do this because it works.
I seem to remember that, when the Conservatives won the first post Thatcher general election, the BBC were totally wrong footed because they were expecting Labour to win. It appeared that they hadn’t even considered that a Conservative victory might happen and were totally unprepared when it did. That was the year when Neil Kinnock did his famous Yeah, oh Yeah, Alright, Yeah speech.
Something weird has happened to the blog – so I can only comment as a reply to bobby b.
I agree with what Gawain Towler and Perry are really saying – namely that the pollsters (and academics) are not objective – they have their own political opinions which influence what they say. That is why in the United States there are conservative polling companies – to counter the leftist polling companies.
That being said – the Reform Party has slipped a bit in recent times, it will still do well (very well) on Thursday – but, perhaps, NOT well enough to indicate it is going to form the next government (assuming the country has not totally collapsed by 2029 – which it may do) – that is what Peter Kellner is talking about, and (leftist though he is) he-has-a-point.
There are two reasons why the Reform Party has slipped a bit (not a huge amount – but, perhaps, enough to prevent it getting a majority in the House of Commons at the next General Election) – a local government reason and a national reason.
At the local government level the promises that Nigel Farage made last year were absurd – for example lower Council Tax, when local authorities that have responsibility for Adult Social Care and Children’s Services have-to (HAVE TO) increase the Council Tax every year (by the legal maximum), then there were silly promises about “better roads”, and the insulting (and constantly repeated) line about “sending in the auditors” – as if councils did not spend many thousands of Pounds on auditors, internal and external, every year.
Mr Farage seemed to think that auditing is about saving money – of course it is NOT, auditing (in government) is about spending money – on auditors (internal and external). Mr Farage has never been in charge of anything so, perhaps, it was understandable for him not to know this – but local Reform Councillors (in North Northamptonshire – and elsewhere) knew Mr Farage was talking nonsense, that all the promises (on Council Tax, on roads, and so on) were nonsense – but they never corrected him, and some voters (around the country) have noticed that the promises were nonsense.
But there is also a national reason for the slippage (again Reform will still be the largest party in local government – but may not be on the road to a majority in the House of Commons in 2029) – the decision of Mr Farage to choose Zia Yusuf over Rupert Lowe.
Zia Yusuf may be a lovely man (I do not know – I have never met him), but he is not what potential Reform Party voters want (and YES religion are part of that – if the Reform Party is not about opposing Islam then there is no point to the party, at least not from the point of view of most potential Reform Party voters) – and pushing out Rupert Lowe, claiming he was senile, and claiming that he had threatened to murder Mr Yusuf, and then sending armed police to the home of Mr Lowe – seemingly hoping he would be killed, was a serious mistake – provoking Mr Lowe into setting up his own political party – the Restore Party.
However, Restore is NOT putting up candidates against Reform (apart from in the little town of Great Yarmouth) so there will be no real “vote splitting” on Thursday between Reform and Restore.
There is still a chance to mend fences – get Rupert Lowe and, perhaps more importantly, the “on line right” (Carl Benjamin and co – and they have a big on-line following) back in the Reform Party fold – somehow Nigel Farage has to reach out and mend the relationship. It is possible to get the “on line right” (at least most of them) back in the Reform Party fold before the 2029 General Election.
As for the Conservatives – there is a by-election in Kettering Town Council on Thursday – and the local Conservative Association has an excellent local candidate and has thrown the kitchen sink at the campaign, on Friday I will be watching the count with interest.
If the Conservatives lose in Hanwood Park (the name of the ward) on Thursday, serious thinking will need to be done – a Green Party victory (due to the right being split between the Conservatives and the Reform Party) would be very bad, and I will observe who, in the event this happens (let us hope it does NOT happen), comes second.
Personally I have already been accused of being a Reform Party Councillor – which is NOT true, as the only council I am member of is a Parish Council, I voted against an increase in the precept (the amount the Parish charges on top of the Council Tax) because there was no good justification for it – Parish Councils are NOT responsible for Adult Social Care or Children’s Services.
I would have no hesitation in voting against another such increase in the precept – it is nothing to do with party-politics.
It would be a huge mistake for Reform to have anything to do with Rupert Lowe or his apologists. Fortunately, it is not a mistake they are going to make.
Even the most even handed experts have unconscious biases. These unconscious biases arise from their personal history and the ‘mood’ of the society they pay attention to. We all (including me) are prone to unconscious biases, but because they are ‘hidden’ we are seldom able to allow for them.
We have seen from AI output how unstated biases shape the conclusions – are people any different? No, but they can make a living from their opinions.
Paul:
I have sympathy with you as regards Reform’s claims. As you say, although Farage has been in politics for 30 years, he has never been in office. As you rightly say, the costs of social care are crippling councils, and they are obliged to provide it. This does not mean savings cannot be made of course.
As I have said, Reform did not “Swat” Rupert Lowe. If a complaint of a threat of violence is made against a gun owner, the police will now always take his guns into custody, and the police sent round are usually armed. It is not the same as a Swat raid. You assume that the complaint against Lowe is false, but we cannot say that is the case. Anyway, Lowe has his guns back, probably because he is rich and an MP. For lesser mortals, the police often cut up rough and refuse to return the guns, even if the complaint is dropped. The unofficial attitude of the police is that reducing the number of guns in private ownership is a good thing in itself, a policy they have been enthusiastically pursuing since the 1970s.
Paul:
I realise that this police attitude towards private firearms ownership is an example of the “policy” you sometimes mention.
No Home Secretary has ever publicly stated that the aim of the government is to reduce firearms ownership. This is a policy which was dreamed up and supported by “ACPO”, which is now the “National Police Chiefs’ Council”, a body which should not exist in my opinion. It is a policy for the police, by the police. They encounter guns in the hands of criminals, and nurse the belief that the eradication of private firearms ownership will reduce armed crime. The rights of gun owners are not their concern. It has no democratic legitimacy, and that is really the whole point. It is policy.
One trick that left-leaning pollsters use in a tight election is to inflate the advantage of their favored party by a lot to make voters for the opposition get discouraged and say “why should I bother to vote, my party is destined to lose”.
A different tactic is to inflate the advantage by the opposition by a huge margin to get party supporters to decide “my party is going to win without my vote so I don’t need to bother”.
They know many tight elections are decided by small percentages and keeping voters of the unfavored party away from the polling station can make the difference.
Perry – it is not just Rupert Lowe, it is the hundred thousand members, and also the vast number of “right wing” people who have NOT joined the Restore Party, but support its policies.
If the Reform Party will “have nothing to do” with “right wing” voters – why should they vote for the Reform Party? YES they will on Thursday – but why should they continue to vote the Reform Party when they find out that the party is not “Right Wing”? A question that also applies to the Conservative Party – and it is a question that has been hanging over the party since the sacking of John Enoch Powell in 1968, especially since Margaret Thatcher was betrayed in 1990. “You have no where else to go” was the traditional answer – but there is no law forcing people to vote Conservative or for the Reform Party – people can, for example, just stay-home on election day – if (if) they think a political party despises them (will “have nothing to do with them”).
But then the Western world, at least the establishment that controls it, may have a death wish.
Hundreds of people killed in Islamic attacks in France and Spain over the years – and no real response, indeed the Islamic population has been allowed to increase. In Spain the government has actively encouraged massive illegal immigration, and actively encouraged Spanish people not to replace themselves (the intent, the objective, is grimly obvious – the destruction of Spain, of the Spanish nation – and the establishment of other Western nations is much the same, if not quite so blatantly extreme).
Thousands of people killed in Islamic attacks in the United States – and, also, no real response (other than wars thousands of miles away – wars that were totally irrelevant in terms of the actual problem) – indeed, again the Islamic population has been allowed to increase – with no real effort to convert them, indeed people like President George Bush running off to an Islamic Centre (only a couple of days after 9/11) not to condemn Islam, or even argue against it – but, on the contrary, to say wonderful Islam was (other Western establishment figures are much the same as President Bush).
Nor is it just a matter of Islamic immigration and natural increase – it is also general Third World immigration and natural increase (indeed we have gone beyond the point where immigration is the main thing – it is now natural increase, births, that is transforming Western nations).
And, at the same time, cultural destruction is causing collapse in the fertility of Western populations – bizarrely celebrated by such people as Alexander Boris Johnson (although he does not follow this policy in his own life). Westerners are not replacing themselves.
Historic nations, peoples, do not wish to die – they do not wish to be replaced. If opposing this is “right wing” so be it. Although, YES, the internal cultural destruction (from the 1960s onwards) is just as important as the immigration – the “great cultural experiment” (feminism and so on) from the 1960s onwards has been a disaster – and the disaster is accelerating, even in the United States where the fertility rate is now well below replacement level.
People who might vote for the Reform Party (or, for that matter, the Conservative Party) want their people, their nation, to continue to exist – and the magic words (such as “racist” – a deadly word since the 1960s) are no longer as powerful as they used to be, as the threat of being eliminated is so obvious. Every individual knows that they, personally, will die – but they comfort themselves by reminding themselves that their people, their nation, will continue to live – if they come to the conclusion that their people (their nations) is going to die if radical action is not taken, then being called an “ist” or a “phobe” is no longer so scary.
The people who will go out vote for the Reform Party on Thursday think they are voting for a “right wing” political party – is it a “right wing” party?
Trying to win over “moderates” will not work – as, if they do not like the Labour Party any more, the so called “moderates” will vote for the Liberal Democrats (although the Lib Dems are not really moderates at all – they are seen as moderates).
“Centrist Dad”, and the Legion of men and women who feel compassion for “minorities” (who will soon NOT be a minority in cities such as Birmingham) are not going to vote for the Reform Party – or for the Conservative Party.
For some nations the situation is different – for example in JAPAN the non Japanese population is still small enough that ending mass immigration is enough – if (if) the cultural changes that have led to the collapse the fertility rate, can be reversed.
And there was nothing organic about the cultural change in so many nations – this was very much a top-down cultural change, planned and pushed by powerful forces. It must be reversed.
JohnK – I believe the complaint against Mr Lowe was false, and I think that it was done with the intent to get armed police to his home.
True that is not “SWATing” (as the term “SWAT” is not used in Britain), but it is very close to it – and even if one hates Mr Lowe, people who will treat him like this would not think twice about treating other people the same way.
As for local, and national, government – yes Mr Farage may be entirely sincere and just not have the knowledge base (the experience) to know what what he suggests is not true (for example that “sending in the auditors” will save money) – I accept that, I am not claiming dishonesty on the part of Mr Farage.
On the “Gun Control” agenda of the establishment – yes it is long standing and international (United Nations Small Arms Treaty and all that) – the propaganda is intense, so I doubt that 1 in 10 British people know that firearms used to be common and legal here – and that the British National Rifle Association used to be far larger than the American one.
“Those who control the memory of the past, control the present – and the future”.
Much of what most British people have been taught to believe is false – and it is the same in other Western nations.
For example, most Americans believe that the tribes were “peaceful” before the coming of Europeans (in reality most tribes were incredibly violent towards each other – far MORE violent than the Europeans were, and tribes did NOT respect the property rights of other tribes – they were constantly at war, taking land from each other), and that the tribes “lived in harmony with nature” (in reality the tribes exterminated many species) – they believe this (and other) nonsense, because they have been indoctrinated by the education system and the media – including the modern entertainment media.
Ecclesistes 3 reminds us that whilst there is a time to love – there is also a time to hate, whilst there is a time to heal – there is also a time to kill, and whilst there is a time for peace – there is also a time for war.
This was known to Aristotle – with his point (known long before him) that any virtue, taken to an extreme, becomes a vice.
Since World War II, at least since the 1960s, this has been forgotten – with compassion (especially compassion to outsiders to the community) being taken to an extreme – perhaps in understandable reaction to the terrible crimes of the National Socialists (Nazis).
But too much “Ying” (to take the terminology of eastern philosophy) is just as destructive as too much “Yang” – a community that viciously murders minorities is bad, but a society that allows itself (its historic nation – people) to be murdered – is also bad. Any virtue, carried to an extreme, becomes a vice – and that includes compassion. Helping a friend is good – general wild government spending that bankrupts a city, or a whole nation, is bad (and taking money by the threat of force is not really compassion anyway).
To help friends is a virtue – to help everyone, including enemies, is a vice – it is a vice because it leads to the destruction not just of yourself, but also of your family and wider community.
The white people (often childless women) who support Mayor Mamdani’s racial equity taxation are not showing virtue (although they think they are) – they are showing a vice, a self destructive vice.
The French priest who employed an African illegal immigrant to look after his church thought he was showing virtue – but he was not, as the migrant showed by burning the church.
Even then the French priest did not learn – indeed he took the man into his own home (as the migrant waited for trial – for burning the church) – the migrant, of course, murdered the priest.
This was very sad – but also only to be expected, and the priest was NOT showing virtue (although the MODERN churches claim he was) – the attitude of the priest was a vice – because it was taken to an extreme.
It was the “suicidal empathy” (or “out group preference”) of the modern West, which will lead to the death of the West.
An ordinary human being can not resurrect themselves or others – nor can they feed five thousand people with a couple of loaves and fishes.
It is the sin of pride for an ordinary person to assume they have the powers of Jesus Christ – to assume, for example, that they can ignore economics, indeed ignore mathematics, and cure all poverty and other ills in the world (the entire world) by force of will – denouncing any rational objections as lack of compassion.
And it is even worse to lead your own community, men, women and children, to death – to parade your own “virtue” (“virtue signaling”) by allowing in enemies and allowing them to increase their numbers over time – ignoring common sense and many centuries of practical experience.
If you lead the men, women and children of your people (your nation) to death, can you restore them to life? No you can not.
So do not pretend to be the being who can – you are not God.
Paul:
We simply cannot know if Zia’s claim against Lowe was true or false, we weren’t there. But it was inevitable that, having been accused of threatening violence, his guns would be confiscated. As I have said, the only unusual thing is he got them back so quickly.
The international gun control agenda can be traced back at least to 1911, when the Home Office was liaising with New York City about banning pistols. This was at the time of the siege of Sydney Street, and the authorities were concerned about Eastern European revolutionaries wielding automatic pistols.
New York got the Sullivan Act in 1911, but the British parliament was still resistant to such measures then. It took the First World War and the fear of a Bolshevik revolution before the first Firearms Act was passed in 1920. Of course, the Act was presented solely as a measure to disarm burglars, the real reason was never mentioned. Are many good laws based on lies?