3 ms·

> If center-left folks flipped on immigration, the current right wing populism would collapse, This theory is false, it does not work. It was tested to destru

> If center-left folks flipped on immigration, the current right wing populism would collapse, This theory is false, it does not work. It was tested to destruction in the UK this year and tl;dr: it's how to annoy everyone. When the centre-left party chases the right-wing, they disillusion their base and lose votes there, without gaining any significant number or right-wingers, who still prefer what they see as the "real thing". And the right-wingers are emboldened, not collapsed - they take one step back for every step taken towards them. The long version is here: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/zbmp3_v2 https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/zbmp3_v2

rayiner 4mo ago
It does work. It’s exactly what happened in Denmark: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mgkd93r4y https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mgkd93r4y. But you have to actually mean it and follow through on it. People need to believe the party has genuinely changed its position on the issue, instead of merely changing its messaging. Every thing Starmer said indicated he was soft on immigration and he took no meaningful steps to stop it and send refugees back.
- SideburnsOfDoom 4mo ago
  Your article is 404 not found. Thank you for your opinion that "centre-left parties should actually be right-wing, it works, trust me". However, I do not share it and nor did the UK. Nor does the linked study, whose analysis and methods I find more persuasive than yours. > Every thing Starmer said indicated he was soft on immigration and he took no meaningful steps to stop it and send refugees back. Immigration into the UK is steeply down (1), the "took no meaningful steps" is just not true. But this is not how the topic is reported. I do believe that Home Secretary Mahmood truly does believe the hard-line things that she says (2) and that it is in no way winning any votes for Labour. Again, actual Labour voters are repulsed, and Reform voters are not attracted. This underscores my point that ceding this issue is not how centre-left parties win. I refer you to the study linked above as to how this backfired due to these perceptions. 1) https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyp1ekd584o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyp1ekd584o 2) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/21/shabana-mahmood-swears-at-hecklers-over-reform-uk-comments https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/21/shabana-mah...
  - rayiner 4mo ago
    Try this one: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mgkd93r4yo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mgkd93r4yo What i’m describing is literally how the Danish left got back in power. In the UK you’d need someone in Labour at least as aggressive as Fredrickson: https://theconversation.com/denmarks-prime-minister-has-led-the-countrys-hardline-migration-policy-now-she-is-trying-to-influence-the-rest-of-europe-263932 https://theconversation.com/denmarks-prime-minister-has-led-.... Immigration isn’t “left wing” or “right wing.” It’s just neoliberalism. It’s based on viewing people as fungible units of labor output.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4mo ago
      > Immigration isn’t “left wing” or “right wing.” I do not agree. This is obviously an issue that the far right continually talk about. In racist terms. In academic language from the linked study: > Thus, accommodating the radical right on immigration could benefit the radical right by increasing the salience of an issue on which it has long been perceived as having a comparative advantage
      - rayiner 4mo ago
        > This is obviously an issue that the far right continually talk about. That’s labeling. Neoliberals coined the term “far right” to refer to a group that to the left of the conventional right on economic issues. > increasing the salience of an issue on which it has long been perceived as having a comparative advantage The Danish left predicted (imo, correctly) that the issue would remain and get more salient due to external factors. Then they got on the right side of it. The alternative approach is to hope the issue will reduce in salience. The problem is that the unruly coalitions that you need to stop far right parties can’t meaningfully give their constituents anything else they want. This is the problem in Germany, France, and the UK.
        SideburnsOfDoom 4mo ago
        Yes, describing political groups is literally "labelling". The idea that the UK's anti-immigrant far right aren't actually far right is just laughable.

rayiner 4mo ago

It does work. It’s exactly what happened in Denmark: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mgkd93r4y https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mgkd93r4y. But you have to actually mean it and follow through on it. People need to believe the party has genuinely changed its position on the issue, instead of merely changing its messaging. Every thing Starmer said indicated he was soft on immigration and he took no meaningful steps to stop it and send refugees back.

SideburnsOfDoom 4mo ago
Your article is 404 not found. Thank you for your opinion that "centre-left parties should actually be right-wing, it works, trust me". However, I do not share it and nor did the UK. Nor does the linked study, whose analysis and methods I find more persuasive than yours. > Every thing Starmer said indicated he was soft on immigration and he took no meaningful steps to stop it and send refugees back. Immigration into the UK is steeply down (1), the "took no meaningful steps" is just not true. But this is not how the topic is reported. I do believe that Home Secretary Mahmood truly does believe the hard-line things that she says (2) and that it is in no way winning any votes for Labour. Again, actual Labour voters are repulsed, and Reform voters are not attracted. This underscores my point that ceding this issue is not how centre-left parties win. I refer you to the study linked above as to how this backfired due to these perceptions. 1) https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyp1ekd584o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyp1ekd584o 2) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/21/shabana-mahmood-swears-at-hecklers-over-reform-uk-comments https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/21/shabana-mah...
- rayiner 4mo ago
  Try this one: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mgkd93r4yo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mgkd93r4yo What i’m describing is literally how the Danish left got back in power. In the UK you’d need someone in Labour at least as aggressive as Fredrickson: https://theconversation.com/denmarks-prime-minister-has-led-the-countrys-hardline-migration-policy-now-she-is-trying-to-influence-the-rest-of-europe-263932 https://theconversation.com/denmarks-prime-minister-has-led-.... Immigration isn’t “left wing” or “right wing.” It’s just neoliberalism. It’s based on viewing people as fungible units of labor output.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4mo ago
    > Immigration isn’t “left wing” or “right wing.” I do not agree. This is obviously an issue that the far right continually talk about. In racist terms. In academic language from the linked study: > Thus, accommodating the radical right on immigration could benefit the radical right by increasing the salience of an issue on which it has long been perceived as having a comparative advantage
    - rayiner 4mo ago
      > This is obviously an issue that the far right continually talk about. That’s labeling. Neoliberals coined the term “far right” to refer to a group that to the left of the conventional right on economic issues. > increasing the salience of an issue on which it has long been perceived as having a comparative advantage The Danish left predicted (imo, correctly) that the issue would remain and get more salient due to external factors. Then they got on the right side of it. The alternative approach is to hope the issue will reduce in salience. The problem is that the unruly coalitions that you need to stop far right parties can’t meaningfully give their constituents anything else they want. This is the problem in Germany, France, and the UK.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 4mo ago
        Yes, describing political groups is literally "labelling". The idea that the UK's anti-immigrant far right aren't actually far right is just laughable.