This is really worth reading, not least as it highlights how the 'Hero Voter' idea has been twisted beyond all recognition in most commentary and Westminster briefing.
As Maria Sobolewska and I first said in Brexitland, the legacy parties under FPP are like Tinkerbell - they need belief to survive. if people cease to believe they see the best and only options, they can die fast. Is this the moment Labourβs Tinkerbell dies?
Well, no, theyβre not just as wrong. The bigger error is not seeing that βtrying to win over voters from a party on the opposite end of the spectrum, whose values your core voters opposeβ is not same as βchasing voters from party on same side ideologically whose values your core voters like.β
Here's a table in the new @britishelectionstudy.com book (forthcoming). We calculated 'second preferences' - here Labour voters after elections 2015 to 2024.
50% of Labour's 2024 voters had Greens as second preference. 42% the Lib Dems. The left bloc is coalescing behind the most viable left party!
Labour should have focused the campaign more on what voters really care about: the licensing terms of critical national geospatial datasets.
Maybe Matt Goodwin is just conducting the mother of all ethnographies
π£ Call for Papers:
ποΈ 23-24 April 2026 at LSE
Submit full papers: forms.office.com/e/9qVWeNTK0p
Please share with colleagues & early-career researchers!
π£ Call for Papers:
ποΈ 23-24 April 2026 at LSE
Submit full papers: forms.office.com/e/9qVWeNTK0p
Please share with colleagues & early-career researchers!
Bear with as I connect this API to my WhatsApp naas.isalman.dev/no
Live scenes from the England Cricket Board meeting on Monday
Online political discussions are characterized by a minority of users dominate the discussion, while most remain silent.
Those who perceived a discussion as toxic/polarized tend to remain silent: But toxicity engages power users (namely men interested in politics) www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
This is very cool, and amazing data!
Looking forward to reading the report in full later
A flow chart shows 17.4 million leave voters in 2016, vs 16.1m remain. In 2025, 5 million of those people have died, and 3 million new voters have come of age. The result (plus some people changing their mind) is 19.8 million voters now back rejoin, versus just 11.7 million wanting to stay out.
Absolutely amazing chart from @peterkellner.bsky.social's piece in @thenewworldmag.bsky.social today:
www.thenewworld.co.uk/peter-kellne...
I wanted dinner recommendations so I scraped 13,000+ London restaurants and accidentally discovered Google Maps is running a shadow economy. Anyway here's a dashboard and a political economy thesis: open.substack.com/pub/laurenle...
πͺResearch suggests that the idea that voters are more persuaded by people who look or sound like them is a myth.
In our new blog post we break down the evidence that demographics matter much less than the content of the conversation.
campaignlab.uk/project/do-s...
π¨Data Update π¨
We have released an updated version of our panel data. This version includes a correction to our p_ethnicity variables, which affected 7.8% of our respondents. There is also a very small correction to our geographic variables.
More β¬οΈ
www.britishelectionstudy.com/uncategorize...
A blog post giving a more thorough take on survey experiments and the credibility revolution: cyrussamii.com?p=4168
Or, the response should be (using whichever method) let's spend more time learning about why effects look different in the field, so we can better project what we learn from surveys where it "matters"
Also the reply then should not be: let's do observational.
No, the reply then should be: let's do field experiments. ;)
I don't read the criticism as saying "survey experiments are bad", more, "this is an unbalanced diet"
(Okay maybe not _the_ most important, but at least equally important to the ATE)!
I agree but I think we're wrong to see it as an entirely technical question -> the compliance rate is often _the_ most important question in determining whether something "works" but we spend remarkably little time thinking about what determines it
Screenshot of text reading: "Nevertheless, experimental results can always be questioned on their generalizability, and framing effects are no exception. The major worry in this respect is that framing experimentsβlike experiments in mass communication generallyβtypiοΏΎcally obliterate the distinction between the supply of information, on the one hand, and its consumption, on the other. That is, experiments are normally carried out in such a way that virtually everyone receives the message. The typical experiment thereby avoids a major obstacle standing in the way of communication effects, namely, an inattentive audience, lost in the affairs of private life. By ensuring that frames reach their intended audiences, experiments may exaggerate their power. A more balanced reading of frame effects requires methodological diversification, experiments and studies oriented to the world outside."
I think this point is nicely stated by this quote in Kinder's critique of the framing literature
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....
For me the concern that we don't spend enough time thinking carefully about how treatments & effects _would_ translate if applied in the field - people accept that a survey exp lacks ecological validity, but then stop there
I think Carnes and Henderson show an alternative approach quite neatly
Whilst survey experiments are useful (and clearly popular), their proliferation is a bit troubling in light of papers like Carnes and Henderson (2025) - especially when studying questions where results (should) directly inform practice in "the field"
www.cambridge.org/core/journal...
Only a few days left to apply for this fully-funded collaborative PhD with @lsegovernment.bsky.social and @campaign-lab.bsky.social!
It's a pretty unique position sat right between academia and "real world" campaigns - please share with someone who might be interested (and/or apply)!
Could not recommend this highly enough - LSE is a great place to be doing a PhD, and Campaign Lab are a fantastic organisation to collaborate with -
More than happy to talk to anyone thinking of applying!
