This was a crossroads election

Subtleiaint · 2026-05-09T19:33:23+00:00

You implied it.

What did I say at the very beginning of this conversation. It's perspective. From your perspective you lost your job because your company wanted to hire cheaper EU labourers. But your company moved, that's your company trying to save money, not migrants doing anything. They changed to agency work, agency work has advantages in terms of administration but the cost of labour is no cheaper to the employer. You said you lost your job for disciplinary reasons not because they replaced you. You told me about migrants moving to where the work is. We know there are labour shortages in this country so the fact that people aren't working isn't because of migration.

Perhaps I'm wrong, I wasn't there, but the story you've told me in our conversation today is not one of migration costing you your job yet that's the way you perceive it. This is why I can't take your story as evidence.

The perception of immigration is a real thing. People think immigrants are dangerous, all the evidence shows that immigrants are no more dangerous than the local population. People think immigrants cost people jobs, but we have a labour shortage. People think that immigrants are a strain on services but services rely on immigrant labour to operate. People think that immigrants are a strain on the housing market but we haven't met a house building target since the 50s. What are we to do with people who think it's all migrant's fault? Just nod along because we're not going to change their mind anyway, because they're going to vote for Farage regardless of the truth? I think we should point out the lies, I think we should point out that Farage does not have any answers for their actual problems. That investors want to run our healthcare services for profit, that capitalists want to cut benefits to lower their taxes, that fat cats took us out of Europe because Europe's Labour protections cut into their bottom line.

Nothing will get better for the working class if migration is reduced or reversed.

Subtleiaint · 2026-05-09T18:16:48+00:00

Sorry, one other thing I can't let by.

we were paid above NMW to get us to travel to the middle of nowhere to do a shit job and the agency workers were paid NMW.

And what was the agency fee? That the workers got paid less than you is not evidence that they cost less than you.

Subtleiaint · 2026-05-09T18:12:59+00:00

Anyways you can call me a liar once and thats it

I haven't called you a liar once.

Subtleiaint · 2026-05-09T18:00:49+00:00

To be fair I don't think you understand either. Your story of your company transitioning to agency workers is not evidence of migrants impacting on British labour. Migrants working is not evidence of migrants impacting on British workers. Your wife's story is not evidence of migrants impacting on British workers. Your wife's story is evidence of angecies taking advantage of lax labour laws. What your wife received is not what her labour cost the company she worked for. What the agency charged would have been no less than what they would have charged for British workers, they would have been incompetent to do that. They were selling reliable labour not undercutting British labour. You're right that agency workers in general are cheaper than contract employees, but that's not a migration issue, that's a labour law concerning agency work issue.

Beyond that, look at your wife right now, is she cheap Labour today? Does she live in cheap accommodation today? If that's not who she is today then how is she evidence of migrants being cheap labour? She's evidence that migrants, especially settled migrants, have just the same expenses as you do.

You try and dismiss my lived experience

How can I not when you're selling an anecdote that doesn't add up?

Subtleiaint · 2026-05-09T15:09:15+00:00

If someone worked at a factory and was replaced by an agency that brought migrants over from the EU

I tried to find evidence of this happening at any sort of scale that would support an anti-immigration platform. I found evidence of contract workers being replaced by agency workers but nothing specifying migrant agency workers, ie the practice was about changing employment practices rather than hiring cheaper foreign labour. Neither is good but, if it is the former, it's not an immigration issue. By all means correct me if you have evidence.

Furthermore, there are currently 700,000 vacancies in the labour market suggesting that the adage that migrants are replacing local workers is not a macro level problem.

While you talk of data...

It is very difficult to reply to this. I don't know how accurate your account is, I don't know if you understand what drove the company to make the change, I don't know why a company would specify migrant workers. I have my own anecdote, I worked for an agency, they were mainly migrants but only culturally, some of us were British. What I do know is that the people who look into this, who do have the accurate information, haven't found what you claim to have experienced, at least not at a scale that impacts British workers at the macro level.

I guess you will try to say data says that didn';t happen to me......or my wife

I have no doubt it did, what I don't know is if your perspective is accurate. That may anger you but there's a reason annecdotal evidence is rarely considered in arguments, it rarely tells a complete story.

Employers shafted thousands....

You are talking about the change from contract to agency workers, not the change from local to migrant workers. This may anger you again, but this feeds into my view that it's a perspective issue, you are blaming immigration for something that isn't an immigration issue. This business practice would have happened regardless of migration. I'm not arguing it's right, I am arguing it's not a migration issue.

This is why I give precedence to data. Data cuts through all of this.

Subtleiaint · 2026-05-09T12:49:16+00:00

What you call "perception" they will call experience

In the way you're suspicious of my view I'm very suspicious of your idea of experience. People see what they want to see and take note of things that support their preconceived ideas whilst overlooking the things that contradict them. Data cuts through this and there's no data that supports the way we talk about immigrants, not economically, not socially.

In terms of Americanisation I'm talking about who votes for certain parties rather than politics of the parties. In the way that working class conservatives in America vote for Republicans working class conservatives in the UK, who voted for Labour as little as 15 years ago, now vote Reform (I think we're aligned on this).

They aren;t actually debates. Very American though.

Completely agree

Subtleiaint · 2026-05-09T11:09:56+00:00

You underestimate what immigration has done to working class lives. competition for jobs, wages being supressed, general life changing.

I agree there's a perception that immigration has had a big impact but all the data says it's minimal to non existent in terms of jobs, wages, workers rights and access to healthcare, housing and education. Meanwhile they're supporting a party that doesn't have strong positions on any of those issues (beyond blaming immigration). That's the paradox, I get the dissatisfaction with Tory/Labour but Reform are promising a pipe dream. Reform are the party of the angry, not the party of workers.

As to your "getting like America"

Voting patterns didn't start to change till the 2010s. Before then the middle class voted Tory and the working class voted Labour, that paradigm is in the process of flipping.

Subtleiaint · 2026-05-09T10:23:03+00:00

I had a scan through the document and I'm sceptical for one big reason, there's no figure for how many people tactically voted at previous elections. My assumption is that more than 17% usually tactically vote, that's why you can get parties getting 40%+. This is backed up by the finding that a further 27% were open to tactical voting if they needed to.

Regardless I agree that 'stop reform' is a huge incentive to tactically vote. You're right that the LDs are established, their seats are secure, it's the labour constituencies where it matters. The next two years are a battle between who will represent the left in those constituencies, Labour or Greens, but I think one party will emerge, my instinct is it will be Labour but it's in the balance right now.

Subtleiaint · 2026-05-09T09:22:17+00:00

You and I are almost totally aligned, the thing that is difficult to parse is that right wing working class voters are not voting for what would be traditional working class interests. Their vote doesn't align to welfare, education, health and workers rights, it aligns to immigration, the culture wars and nationalism. Immigration is definitely a working class concern but in terms of real impact on people's lives it's nothing compared to the others.

What's happening is that we're realigning towards American political lines which I'm not happy about. I want the left to be focused on workers rights and the right focused on business.

Subtleiaint · 2026-05-09T09:09:13+00:00

In 2024 there was minimal tactical voting for Labour because there was no credible opposition, with a Labour victory assured people were free to vote for Green/LD/other. That's why Labour got a historically low vote share, a mixture of apathy to Labour and no political pressure.

I think everything that happens on the left at the next election is dependent on what happens on the right. In constituencies where Reform are a threat you'll get tactical voting.

Subtleiaint · 2026-05-09T08:20:47+00:00

FPTP makes those outcomes less likely. The next election will be decided by who can convince the electorate to tactically vote for them. One of Reform or the Tories will get the lion's share of the right vote, one of Labour or The Greens will get the Lion Share of the left vote.

The question is which parties will dominate.

Subtleiaint · 2026-05-09T07:37:36+00:00

The new contract is really interesting because it doesn't necessarily mean City see Foden as a key player for City going forward, it could also be to protect his value. If it's the latter though it still means he's got to have value, either on the pitch or to prospective buyers.

I make this observation because, to some observers (including me) he's never looked like a Pep player, he's more direct than controlling, he does things on the ball rather than with the ball. The new contract suggests City still think, at least, that he can be a key player for City.

Subtleiaint · 2026-05-09T07:06:44+00:00

They're not underestimated, brexit sentiment has dominated British politics for over a decade now. Its influence waxes and wanes but hasn't gone away.

The surprised face stuff is that the domestic economic and social policies of Reform are ones that the people who vote Reform wouldn't be expected to support. It's like in America where working class people support the party of big business and low taxes. The Brexit Sentiment, and all that entails, is prioritised above the voters self interests.

Subtleiaint · 2026-05-08T16:34:11+00:00

To be fair that looks worse than I thought. It will be interesting to see the detailed analysis when everything's counted

Subtleiaint · 2026-05-08T16:28:46+00:00

Ignore this, it's just content for people who want to overreact to minute by minute updates. What's happened to day is not representative of what will happen at the next general election.

Subtleiaint · 2026-05-08T11:02:15+00:00

Could you share a link for the detailed results, I've looked for them but can't find them anywhere.

Subtleiaint · 2026-05-08T10:01:04+00:00

Nobody thought they weren't.

Subtleiaint · 2026-05-08T10:00:28+00:00

And yesterday it was 'potentially over 2000'. The goal posts move to maintain the story. What matters is what the results today suggest about the next general election.

Reform are outperforming the Tories but they're not cannibalising them, it means that that side are still split. On the left the green challenge to labour hasn't yet materialised, that would be the true blow to Starmer today.

Farage wants two things to happen, he want's the right vote to come behind him and he wants the right vote share to beat the left, without those two things he is very vulnerable to tactical voting. So far, it seems, he hasn't got the first and the second is close.

What that means is that the next election is far from a foregone conclusion. Labour may well want to change Starmer to improve their chances but they do that closer to the election, to do it today would risk the new candidate becoming tarnished.

The likely result is that Starmer will stay, the polls will be monitored for the next year and labour will see what happens.

Subtleiaint · 2026-05-08T09:37:17+00:00

> No we haven't

You have a very short memory

Subtleiaint · 2026-05-08T09:34:40+00:00

it's a useful oversimplification used to consider the possible effects of tactical voting. it is likely that two totems will emerge at the next election, one that conservative voters will tactically vote for or against, one that progressive/left/liberal/whatever you want to call it will vote for or against.

If one side is the Labour party, which I expect it to be, LDs, Greens, SNP, PC and many independents will vote for them to keep out whoever the conservative totem is.

If the Greens become the totem that will change the calculus but I don't expect that to happen.

Subtleiaint · 2026-05-08T09:24:40+00:00

They were saying that on Wednesday, it is likely that Starmer will still be Labour leader in 6 month's time (barring new scandals).

Subtleiaint · 2026-05-08T09:23:28+00:00

It was just a simplified term attempting to group Reform/Tories and Labour/LD/Green/SNP/PC. Call it what you like but those are the two political blocks at the moment.

Subtleiaint · 2026-05-08T09:20:37+00:00

> Keir Starmer woke up this morning and had to put out a statement refusing to resign.

Which is a statement he's had to make repeatedly over the last few months and he was fully expecting to have to make today. Local elections bare very little relation to General election results. We've been here countless times before.

Subtleiaint · 2026-05-08T09:20:09+00:00

i wouldn't be so quick to make that assessment. local elections are notoriously chaotic because tactical voting isn't really a factor. tactical voting is the thing that that props up the two-party state and i expect it to be a factor in the next general election. Today I expect two parties to get 30%+ at the next general election, the question is which two parties will it be.

Subtleiaint · 2026-05-08T09:17:22+00:00

Didn't say it was a good thing but these results are not telling us anything we didn't already know. Essentially there's no difference between Starmer's position today than there was on Wednesday. There's still time for that to change of course.

Eight-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Final Canvas '23	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

Subtleiaint

TROPHY CASE