mariosrichards.bsky.social
Frequently wrong. Please correct (effort involved appreciated).
Experiments with Data Visualisation:
https://github.com/MariosRichards/BES_analysis_code
https://medium.com/@mariosrichards
https://mariosrichards.substack.com/
4,211 posts
1,371 followers
1,019 following
Discussion Master
comment in response to
post
"tough guy language"
comment in response to
post
Maybe I'll sit down, do a version myself *and set it up so it can explain itself to me a bit more*.
comment in response to
post
It's more of machine-learning tutorial than electoral analysis - only a bit of that at the end - so that's mostly 'exercise for the reader'.
Interesting how little it maps onto the terms commonly used in discourse.
comment in response to
post
Well, "this kind of summary" is a bit of a misnomer because the "Red Wall" analysis was a really specific subgroup.
But here's a vanilla cluster analysis breaking UK constituencies down by vote choice (looks like using census data):
medium.com/analytics-vi...
comment in response to
post
(Also, the Red Wall voted Labour, not Reform - but I guess you could replace that with the 5 seats they got and the next 25 strongest seats for Reform)
comment in response to
post
"This pyramid - it is very expensive and almost all the cost comes from the lower 4/5ths - could we not just build the top?"
comment in response to
post
Ah, so *that's* what caused WW2!
comment in response to
post
Very roughly:
Red Wall ~30 seats
Southern England where seats are LD-Con marginals ~200 seats
In fairness, a person who followed UK political news will have seen coverage in inverse proportion.
comment in response to
post
Why were they secret? Was there a tax on being a Nazi back in the old days, grandpa?
comment in response to
post
(Take control of part of the US armed forces and then just roll in with the tanks - see how Abrams does against Kudzu - increasingly hard to tell the difference between modern geopolitics and my game of Terra Invicta)
comment in response to
post
Very inside the box thinking.
Sure, it may not *popular choice* but I think the Conservative Party should think laterally and focussing on winning the seats that will *really matter* in the future.
I'm talking Wisconsin, Philadelphia, Michigan. Leave 'little England' to the Lib Dems.
comment in response to
post
In a PR system, yes.
Under FPTP ... no, the prize is seats and the threat is seats.
comment in response to
post
It's not PR - you can lose lots of voteshare to REFUK as Cameron did *and gain seats* - and you can pile up voteshare and get nothing.
comment in response to
post
All the people mocking Corbynites - correctly - for focusing on "voteshare silver medal" self-appointment need to remember that this also applies to Reform.
comment in response to
post
The point is that any move towards Reform would mean votes going to the Lib Dems and Labour - the parties that actually won lots of seats of them and could win more.
comment in response to
post
The point isn't that the Conservatives *could* pick up more votes from moving towards Reform than Labour could by doing the same - or that their 2024 vote is more threatened.
comment in response to
post
But I think your conclusion still stands - Cameron got the first Con majority in 23 years when UKIP was riding high by pitching towards the Lib Dems (and had gone into govt by the same in 2010).
comment in response to
post
> fair bit of evidence Reform voters are no more friendly to
> the Tories than they are to Labour
I don't think so. Reform VI is bigger than the 2024 vote - but not *so much* bigger (much inflation from high DK%!) that this isn't going to be a reasonable rough guide.
comment in response to
post
> There is nothing radical about behaviour study
I didn't say anything about "behaviour study" - I said "behaviourism":
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavio...
comment in response to
post
Elon Musk does exactly the same thing - the salute and no subsequent apology - and everyone else reacts the same.
There is no difference at all between him being an "accident-prone narcissist" and "conscious boundary-tester".
comment in response to
post
I said keeping his actions - and reactions of other people - identical.
Do you not see that there's no difference at all?
comment in response to
post
What part of "radical behaviourist" is unclear to you?
I'm suggesting that 9 time out of 10 speculating about motive is at best premature, at worst brain-rotting.
You cannot have taboos about motives.
comment in response to
post
The relevant point is "Are they getting out of the car and showing signs of horror and remorse or are they accelerating towards other people?". Don't need a soul window/theory of comprehensive character analysis for that!
comment in response to
post
People's brains have been rotted by too much discourse - someone hits a kid with a car, the first question should be "Ah, but what they did they *mean* by that? Did they hit them seriously or literally?".
comment in response to
post
But - here in the physical world - there is a difference between whether someone is sanctioned for it (by themselves - saying sorry - or by other people).
comment in response to
post
We don't need to speculate what was in his head.
There is no physical difference between an Intentional Nazi Salute or an Unintentional Nazi Salute. It's less than pointless to speculate about.
comment in response to
post
Even merely *entering into a speculation* on plausibility of the different scenarios takes people away from *focus on the concrete observable certainties*.
See also "exactly what is a Nazi salute" is a distraction from "the large space of gestures that obviously look like one".
comment in response to
post
It shouldn't - people should have the mental clarity to realise that it simply *doesn't matter* if someone *accidentally* Hitler salutes or *intentionally* Hitler salutes.
What matters is that they apologise and/or are sanctioned.
comment in response to
post
Following politics has turned me into a radical behaviourist.
Talking about acts in terms of intentions *makes people and discourse dumb*.
comment in response to
post
What would be different if the intent had been different *but the actions as observed - and reactions - by the world had been identical?
comment in response to
post
(or, indeed, tattoos)
comment in response to
post
Seems inefficient - could you get the same effect by preceding every comedy movie by 30s of concentrated atroc-
comment in response to
post
I don't rate his chances of survival on the way back to his home planet.
comment in response to
post
Like he solved that bear?
comment in response to
post
It never, ever mattered (almost always a complete sideline to get into invisible intentions in preference to concrete actions)
What *does* matter is
- he didn't apologise
- he wasn't sanctioned
comment in response to
post
That's the thing about taboos - intentionality is not relevant (what matters is whether someone is sanctioned).
comment in response to
post
Only one way to be *sure* you've destroyed the woke mindvirus ...
comment in response to
post
Don't jinx it - do you want to trigger Musk to do an inverse-Armaggedon?
comment in response to
post
But for special-eye-directing-wires for young readers rather than travelling to the moon.
Maybe also a shock collar for when the *wrong* parts of people's brains are lighting up (what do you mean you're sympathising with the villain because he's *also* wearing a brain cage!).
comment in response to
post
How would a poll on twitter be "Zelensky-controlled"?
comment in response to
post
Not immediately clear how you reverse that - other than through the medium of grand slaughter (civil/world war).
comment in response to
post
Notably, trust in *deliberative institutions* (inherently liberal) has been falling (most everywhere, consistently for a while) while trust in *executive institutions* (inherently auth) has been rising.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
"since coming second"
Again, I am begging journalists to learn how FPTP works.
If you're in an ultra-safe Conservative seat with 80% of the voteshare ... what voteshare would you need to "come second"?
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
* Powerful people - people who *need* to be held to account. You know, SomeGuy49 on twitter whose careless tweet spooked a CEO. Or a speaker at the Hay festival.
These are the people committing acts of Unspeech that undermined our shared commitment to Free Speech.
comment in response to
post
Funny how protecting free speech somehow always(/often) seems to mean telling people* to shut up.
The worst part is it that it's literally the same format of "woah, you may not like speech act X, it may even be naive or obnoxious - why it may even anger you - yet".
comment in response to
post
This is where Ford&Sobolewska's "necessity liberal" concept comes from (authoritarians forced into a coalition of people whose values they don't really share because the authoritarian coalition frames them as the out-group).
comment in response to
post
It's actually not at all unusual to have a situation where someone is value-wise totally aligned with an authoritarian party - women and minorities are getting an easy ride from our too liberal mainstream politicians! - except for the small impediment of being in one of the groups targeted.