UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Yep. The policies were popular. The barrier was the brexit policy and the dislike of Corbyn due to the consistent negative media coverage influencing mainly low and medium engagement voters.

The problem is that that negative media coverage will likely persist for any Labour leader who is not centre or centre right. It is imperative for Labour to find a way to manoeuvre around that.

head in sand. 11101 says what I want to say below.

No, they weren't.

If somebody says let's give everybody in the country a million pounds, of course everyone will say brilliant.

Ask them if it's a good idea to give everyone in the country a million pounds, and most will say no.

In isolation the Labour policies were popular. Bundled together people realised they were unrealistic.

Agree with that. Liberal Democrats have shown that middle of the road politics as had it's day.

disagree completely.

it was their ‘undemocratic’ scrap Brexit idea that people didn’t like.

I don’t think they even believed it themselves, just a blatant attempt to land grab. Add in Swinsons delusions of grandeur and you had a recipe for disaster

 

[nickm]

This is nonsense and not backed by any data whatsoever as per usual.

From the BBC:
"Then there were the policies.
Individually, some are, by any measure, popular - just as the current leadership claim.
But taken together, one now former MP told me: "It was like the Generation Game conveyor belt. One of the few things we didn't offer voters was a cuddly toy, or if we did, I missed it.
"But all the other items - broadband, pensions, free buses - came so thick and fast no-one could remember them. Not a single voter mentioned a single retail offer on the doorstep."

From a beaten MP:
"They looked at us and saw a leader they did not think put the country first; a manifesto that they thought too good to be true; a party too self involved to listen to their concerns, let alone address them"

From the Guardian:
“It wasn’t that people didn’t like the policies, people thought there was too many of them. The free broadband was really unpopular." Jon Lansman, leader of the Corbyn campaign group, Momentum, said: “The manifesto was too detailed and too long."

From the Mail (yes I know):
The candidate, who is defending a healthy majority, also warned that last week’s manifesto ... had gone down badly in his constituency.
‘Voters just think it’s gone way too far, too far Left,’ he said.

The Mirror:
While much of Labour’s broad manifesto - described by one MP as a “confetti of promises” - was popular, sceptical voters weren’t convinced the party would be able to do it all.

Len McCluskey:
"incontinent rush of policies which appeared to offer everything to everyone immediately, and thereby strained voter credulity as well as obscuring the party’s sense of priorities."

 

[Redlambs]

Lib Dems weren't middle of the road in this election. Revoking article 50 was an extreme position.

Good point.

 

[11101]

This is nonsense and not backed by any data whatsoever as per usual.

Labour can bury its head in the sand all it wants. Others have posted examples and you had the IFS and other prominent economists tearing the manifesto costings apart.

 

[SteveJ]

“It wasn’t that people didn’t like the policies, people thought there was too many of them. The free broadband was really unpopular."

"Free broadband?!? What be this strange and confusing witchcraft?"

 

[Wolverine]

I've been reading some anecdotal evidence from MPs that this is one of the things being said on doorsteps.

Plural of anecdote is not data though, of course it might be a combination of things. What I've seen in focus group type interviews on the news the majority of gripes seem to be predicated on Corbyn himself and generics instead of disagreements about singular manifesto policies

It might very well be that the manifesto in its entirety was not deemed credible. But individual policies in terms of nationalisation, limiting NHS privatisation, free broadband, tuition fees abolishments have good support but the person spearheading such ambitious policy proposals may not have been felt by the populace to be the right person to deliver them and thats why they came across as desperate or gimmicky.

Ed Miliband was a classic example in the way he promised more middle of the road incremental changes and he didn't do well. Its the totality of the game that labour needs to master because I firmly believe people can get behind a more "radical" manifesto than the Miliband, Brown propositions that lost Labour the previous elections prior to Corbyn. But the party leader has to be credible and there needs to be more lateral thinking around simply being tax-and-rich which is thought to be (rightly or wrongly) unfriendly to business and not meritocratic.

5 further years of conservative government will be interesting because essentially they have a free reign to deliver their one-nation paternalistic slightly jingoistic form of conservatism. Boris I believe does prefer a bigger role for the state compared to previous leaders and I think will be ambitious in certain regards but there's only so far his personality will carry him but with rapid economic/trade changes happening in terms of domestic social policy he will probably be more incremental (social care and Brexit aside his party didn't have much in the manifesto). With Brexit out of the picture in next 5 years and not being able to point to an obstructionist parliament every single adverse outcome or state of the country, economy has to be aggressively framed against him and his party.

The NHS I can tell you working as a junior doctor across 10 hospitals and multiple community setting is in dire straits and that has to be key battleground now. But if labour goes the centre route and thinks that will get them back into contention they are mistaken. Big voting shifts can happen again I don't believe the conservative voters that gave them this majority aren't amenable to change just as quickly back. And you have to incentivise the new younger eligible voters and get them on board too while keeping the existing ones away from going lib dem or becoming apathetic. It won't be easy but I think spending the next 5 years only to have middle of the road approach and party platform isn't any where near what's needed.

It is primarily predicated on the right leader though and acceptance by labour grassroots that purity politics may not be the way forward.

 

[Maticmaker]

Although it is a bit harsh I liked Alan Johnsons comment about Jeremy not being able to "lead out of a paper bag"... Jeremy's certainly no Moses!
...Oh should I say that?

 

[Wolverine]

Labour can bury its head in the sand all it wants. Others have posted examples and you had the IFS and other prominent economists tearing the manifesto costings apart.

They weren't too kind on the conservative manifesto. I also am not sure how much of a bearing IFS' reports translated in tangible terms in terms of the manifesto's popularity as opposed to what was said about it in totality from news media outlets and the manifesto being spun as not credible - largely predicated I think on Corbyn with "money forrest" soundbites etc

 

[sammsky1]

Freedman really doesn’t - I’ve never read such a load of garbage in all my life.

Starts by correctly stating that people rejected Corbyn. No issue with that. But why did they reject Corbyn? The same reason they have rejected every slightly left of centre Labour leader - the press absolutely annihilated him at every single opportunity.

So what Freedman is basically advocating is that the Labour Party needs to exist purely as a Tory-lite vassal if it ever wants to get elected. Any increases in tax, promises to invest in public services or increase the minimum wage are absolutely out of the question.

So my question is to Freedman, what’s the point? Shift to the right to get elected and then change absolutely nothing?

See, I actually know some “proper” working class people, unlike people like Freedman.

They didn’t get out of bed on Thursday morning to reject an increase in income tax for the richest 5% or a small increase in corporation tax. Many of them don’t really understand or care about Nationalisation (other than a few may “understand” it’s bad because the Sun told them so). They didn’t vote against a Green Industrial revolution.

They got out of bed on Thursday morning to “get Brexit done” and keep that lying, anti-Semitic, terrorist-sympathising, Jihadi-loving, Marxist, Communist, Queen-hating, security threatening racist out of power and give loveable rogue Boris his mandate.

I fully understand someone will be quick to label me part of the problem - well I’m not making excuses here. If you’re not appealing to these people you’ve got to get out and change that. You know the press will vilify anything a hare’s breath left of centre so your candidates/MPs need to be all over their local communities, proving they’re not the monsters the papers say they are.

If you want to come on and tell me I’m wrong feel free to do so, but go and canvass opinion in my hometown in Derbyshire, ex mining community, or many of the thousands like it, then tell me again what you think. Guarantee you’ll get a rundown of “the Sun’s greatest hits”

Yeah. You are part of the problem.

 

[CassiusClaymore]

BBC staff express fear of public distrust after election coverage
Director-general calls accusations of bias ‘conspiracy theories’

'The BBC’s director-general has expressed his exasperation with “conspiracy theories” about the broadcaster’s election news coverage, although some of its journalists privately fear that errors during the campaign may have hit public trust in the corporation.

Tony Hall emailed staff on Friday to thank them for their work on the BBC’s coverage, which has led to the corporation’s political news output coming under intense online scrutiny. This followed criticism of the editing out laughter aimed at Boris Johnson in a news bulletin, reporters uncritically repeating Conservative sources, such as when a Labour activist was erroneously accused of punching a Tory aide, and the prime minister escaping scrutiny after dodging a one-on-one interview with Andrew Neil.

Hall said the BBC’s critics were often seeing bias in what were genuine human errors: “In a frenetic campaign where we’ve produced hundreds of hours of output, of course we’ve made the odd mistake and we’ve held up our hands to them. Editors are making tough calls every minute of the day. But I don’t accept the view of those critics who jump on a handful of examples to suggest we’re somehow biased one way or the other.”

He also suggested social media platforms should find ways to reduce the level of public criticism aimed at journalists, such as BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg: “Elections always put the BBC’s impartiality in the spotlight. Social media offers a megaphone to those who want to attack us and makes this pressure greater than ever. The conspiracy theories that abound are frustrating. And let’s be clear – some of the abuse which is directed at our journalists who are doing their best for audiences day in, day out is sickening. It shouldn’t happen. And I think it’s something social media platforms really need to do more about.”

Despite this, there remain concerns within the corporation’s newsrooms that this election was a tough challenge for a broadcaster that strives for accuracy. More than 30 BBC journalists spoke to the Guardian about the outlet’s coverage in the final days of the campaign, ranging from senior on-air presenters to mid-level producers and recent hires.'

More:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...ar-of-public-distrust-after-election-coverage

Funnily enough I've been reading a lot of opinion today from the other side indicating that they think the BBC and C4 should be shut down due to their overwhelming left bias. Not at all fascistic.

Will be interesting if Johnson goes through with scrapping the licence fee.

 

[nickm]

Plural of anecdote is not data though, of course it might be a combination of things. What I've seen in focus group type interviews on the news the majority of gripes seem to be predicated on Corbyn himself and generics instead of disagreements about singular manifesto policies

It might very well be that the manifesto in its entirety was not deemed credible. But individual policies in terms of nationalisation, limiting NHS privatisation, free broadband, tuition fees abolishments have good support but the person spearheading such ambitious policy proposals may not have been felt by the populace to be the right person to deliver them and thats why they came across as desperate or gimmicky.

I agree that credibility and trust were key issues and Labour spent zero time trying to earn those things. The leadership was part of it and probably amplified it. But my real point is, because labour activists really liked the manifesto, they are trying to find reasons not to include it in their analysis of why they got beaten. My view is, when a party gets such a crushing rejection, it's best to start from the position that everything must be up for grabs. The policies have to be on the table in any review of why Labour lost.

Ed Miliband was a classic example in the way he promised more middle of the road incremental changes and he didn't do well. Its the totality of the game that labour needs to master because I firmly believe people can get behind a more "radical" manifesto than the Miliband, Brown propositions that lost Labour the previous elections prior to Corbyn. But the party leader has to be credible and there needs to be more lateral thinking around simply being tax-and-rich which is thought to be (rightly or wrongly) unfriendly to business and not meritocratic.

The problem was that Labour lost trust under Brown and Miliband was not able to earn it back. And they still haven't really tried. The wider political context is important there. It is possible that a more radical manifesto could win, but perhaps the radicalism is a second term ambition rather than a first one, once people are reassured you aren't going to burn the place down. You are right it's about the totality of the game - Labour have no game, unfortunately.

5 further years of conservative government will be interesting because essentially they have a free reign to deliver their one-nation paternalistic slightly jingoistic form of conservatism. Boris I believe does prefer a bigger role for the state compared to previous leaders and I think will be ambitious in certain regards but there's only so far his personality will carry him but with rapid economic/trade changes happening in terms of domestic social policy he will probably be more incremental (social care and Brexit aside his party didn't have much in the manifesto). With Brexit out of the picture in next 5 years and not being able to point to an obstructionist parliament every single adverse outcome or state of the country, economy has to be aggressively framed against him and his party.

The NHS I can tell you working as a junior doctor across 10 hospitals and multiple community setting is in dire straits and that has to be key battleground now. But if labour goes the centre route and thinks that will get them back into contention they are mistaken. Big voting shifts can happen again I don't believe the conservative voters that gave them this majority aren't amenable to change just as quickly back. And you have to incentivise the new younger eligible voters and get them on board too while keeping the existing ones away from going lib dem or becoming apathetic. It won't be easy but I think spending the next 5 years only to have middle of the road approach and party platform isn't any where near what's needed.
It is primarily predicated on the right leader though and acceptance by labour grassroots that purity politics may not be the way forward.

The Tory strategy must be to try to maintain their new coalition, so I think they will spend more than you'd expect from Tories. They will have to spend to keep their new ex-Labour voters onside because once Brexit is "done" (whatever that means) there's not as much on the identity front to keep them onside (unless Scotland blows up as an issue maybe). It was interesting that the first thing Johnson mentioned was the NHS. We'll see though, I'm not sure the pressures on the NHS are solvable just by pumping more money into it when you take into account contributory factors like social care, but you'll know much more on that than me.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I don’t see it nickm, tories always bang on about backing the NHS and never do.
More likely they will continue with sneaky privatization and they’ll keep their voters if they keep aiding the wealthy and promising to keep out pesky immigrants.

In short, the Tories have found a perfect formula already and despite years of shit keep getting elected, why would they suddenly do something different like spend on public services?

 

[Fiskey]

I don’t see it nickm, tories always bang on about backing the NHS and never do.
More likely they will continue with sneaky privatization and they’ll keep their voters if they keep aiding the wealthy and promising to keep out pesky immigrants.

In short, the Tories have found a perfect formula already and despite years of shit keep getting elected, why would they suddenly do something different like spend on public services?

Because Labour may well get their act together and put forward a credible alternative option.

 

[Siorac]

This election had shown that a majority of the country wanted the government to get on with things. By being 20 of c.300 MPs not allowing the government to move forward with their agenda, it was the remainers being extremist.

48% of people voted Remain in that referendum. Are they all extremists?

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Because Labour may well get their act together and put forward a credible alternative option.

Labour will never take the regular Tory voter unless they go all Blair-esque again, Murdoch won’t allow it.

If Tory can take Stoke-on-Trent after this shambles of a decade, they are on a winner, keep doing it and pushing Brexit etc, blame the continued austerity on temporary but unavoidable problems due to leaving EU and play the “we want this for a better future for the UK” card, they’ll piss it for years. People will lap it up as we’ve seen time and time again these past years.

 

[Fiskey]

48% of people voted Remain in that referendum. Are they all extremists?

Not at all, but by then trying to frustrate the result of the referendum you become an extremist. Lots of that 48% agreed that the vote had been won and decided to move on.

 

[Fiskey]

Labour will never take the regular Tory voter unless they go all Blair-esque again, Murdoch won’t allow it.

If Tory can take Stoke-on-Trent after this shambles of a decade, they are on a winner, keep doing it and pushing Brexit etc, blame the continued austerity on temporary but unavoidable problems due to leaving EU and play the “we want this for a better future for the UK” card, they’ll piss it for years. People will lap it up as we’ve seen time and time again these past years.

It's not a media conspiracy, it's the view of the country. Blair is the politician who most perfectly captured the mood of the country in the past 50 years.

 

[Kentonio]

Voters are largely dumb cnuts and should be treated as such from here on out. How did Blair win? He stuck 5 simple promises on a card and hammered them home until people remembered them.

The Tories just won by managing to be totally consistent in their barefaced lying in the face of any attempted fact checking or correction. Also with their endless repetition of their shitty little ‘get Brexit done’ line. In interviews with voters, they kept repeating back that the Tories would ‘get Brexit done’. The slogan worked, it influenced voters.

So next election let’s forget the myth that a party can have an adult grown up debate with the electorate. Keep it simple, get your slogan right, and don’t be afraid to lie your ass off. People get the politicians they deserve.

 

[Kentonio]

Not at all, but by then trying to frustrate the result of the referendum you become an extremist. Lots of that 48% agreed that the vote had been won and decided to move on.

No they hadn’t, not according to opinion polls. The stupidity of the LD position was in taking away the option of a 2nd ref so the public will could have been shown to have changed.

 

[Siorac]

]I'm not sure people are listening but for me as a 'labour leaver' seeing Corbyn give in to the blarite side of the party on an issue (EU) he has voted against for 30 years destroyed my trust in him. For his personal beliefs against the EU but also for his idea of democracy itself. Any party or position of remain in this election was a complete non starter and would have been even if I voted remain (it was a close decision for me).

If we do not honor votes what is the point of elections or democracy in the first place? Please do not give me the line of I was lied to. The propaganda from both sides was as it ever was, that's how politics works unfortunately. I was not taken in by The character assassination of Corbyn or Johnson for that matter but I did instinctively dislike Swinson, even though her position was clear - it was clearly anti-democratic!

It's not the first time I have moved across the aisle I did when tuition fee's were introduced after saying they would not be while I was studying, I guess I dislike manifesto's being ignored.

So I checked some stats: 61% of people who voted Labour in 2015 voted Remain in 2016.

Leavers always always always take it for granted that because of a slight majority, no one should ever represent Remainers ever again, pro-EU people should just shut the feck up because "democracy".

By this logic, at the next general election, everyone should only be allowed to campaign on Tory policies. After all, DEMOCRACY!! It was the DEMOCRATIC CHOICE OF THE VOTERS to vote for Tory policies, you cannot ignore that!!!

 

[Fiskey]

No they hadn’t, not according to opinion polls. The stupidity of the LD position was in taking away the option of a 2nd ref so the public will could have been shown to have changed.

We just had an election, we've seen what the country thinks.

 

[SteveJ]

Voters are largely dumb cnuts and should be treated as such from here on out. How did Blair win? He stuck 5 simple promises on a card and hammered them home until people remembered them.

The Tories just won by managing to be totally consistent in their barefaced lying in the face of any attempted fact checking or correction. Also with their endless repetition of their shitty little ‘get Brexit done’ line. In interviews with voters, they kept repeating back that the Tories would ‘get Brexit done’. The slogan worked, it influenced voters.

So next election let’s forget the myth that a party can have an adult grown up debate with the electorate. Keep it simple, get your slogan right, and don’t be afraid to lie your ass off. People get the politicians they deserve.

Sad but seemingly true.

 

[Fiskey]

So I checked some stats: 61% of people who voted Labour in 2015 voted Remain in 2016.

Leavers always always always take it for granted that because of a slight majority, no one should ever represent Remainers ever again, pro-EU people should just shut the feck up because "democracy".

By this logic, at the next general election, everyone should only be allowed to campaign on Tory policies. After all, DEMOCRACY!! It was the DEMOCRATIC CHOICE OF THE VOTERS to vote for Tory policies, you cannot ignore that!!!

No, in an election you can campaign on what you want. What you can't do, and what makes you an extremist, is if you get elected on a manifesto of delivering Brexit (2017) and then proceed to frustrate it in parliament.

 

[SteveJ]

Not mine. It just made me laugh:

'I think most people these days vote in elections the way my mum would bet on a horse because she liked the jockey's shirt.'

 

[Kentonio]

We just had an election, we've seen what the country thinks.

Elections are not single issue choices no matter what some journos might claim.

 

[Virgil]

48% of people voted Remain in that referendum. Are they all extremists?

No more than all of the 52% were racist, Cnuts, or as thick as two short planks

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

It's not a media conspiracy, it's the view of the country. Blair is the politician who most perfectly captured the mood of the country in the past 50 years.

Read an analysis on push notifications sent by the 10 major newspapers since 6 November. Tory was 18% positive and Labour 57% negative. Most people probably just read the headlines and are driven by fear and hatred and a bit of tribal nationalism is the only thing that gives some meaning to their shitty loveless lives.

Hasn’t Murdoch backed every single winner of an election in decades?

 

[Redlambs]

Voters are largely dumb cnuts and should be treated as such from here on out. How did Blair win? He stuck 5 simple promises on a card and hammered them home until people remembered them.

The Tories just won by managing to be totally consistent in their barefaced lying in the face of any attempted fact checking or correction. Also with their endless repetition of their shitty little ‘get Brexit done’ line. In interviews with voters, they kept repeating back that the Tories would ‘get Brexit done’. The slogan worked, it influenced voters.

So next election let’s forget the myth that a party can have an adult grown up debate with the electorate. Keep it simple, get your slogan right, and don’t be afraid to lie your ass off. People get the politicians they deserve.

True, sadly so.

What's even more sad though, is you can't even have that adult debate in here as people who just don't want to listen jump straight to extremes of your point and we all go around in circles. We suck at polls, but we sure do imitate life well in here.

 

[Siorac]

Voters are largely dumb cnuts and should be treated as such from here on out. How did Blair win? He stuck 5 simple promises on a card and hammered them home until people remembered them.

The Tories just won by managing to be totally consistent in their barefaced lying in the face of any attempted fact checking or correction. Also with their endless repetition of their shitty little ‘get Brexit done’ line. In interviews with voters, they kept repeating back that the Tories would ‘get Brexit done’. The slogan worked, it influenced voters.

So next election let’s forget the myth that a party can have an adult grown up debate with the electorate. Keep it simple, get your slogan right, and don’t be afraid to lie your ass off. People get the politicians they deserve.

And more importantly, to all the analysers here: all of this is not specific to the UK!

Sure, other countries don't have Brexit but the divide is similar, the issues are similar. Young people facing an increasingly difficult future don't believe the assertion that just more privatisation, more economic liberalisation will somehow solve the problems it caused in the first place. Most of them do not believe that immigrants and the international Jewish conspiracy are to blame.

Older voters, voters in rural communities or in traditional industries want to at the very least stop the clock, and preferably turn it back. This is happening EVERYWHERE. It's not about Johnson, it's not about Corbyn, it's not even about Trump.

And everywhere, the Left has a harder job than the Right. Being on the right is easy: lower taxes, more deregulation, more redistribution of wealth to the top. How you'll pay for that? By keeping immigrants out and by cutting off those leeches on benefits. Boom, done. Easy. It will trickle down eventually, we promise!

It's also easier to appeal to authoritarians (hence the Cult of the Leader). It's also a lot easier to keep an authoritarian movement in check - because they see obedience to a leader as a value, because it's easy to appeal to national pride, and shit like that. It's a lot harder to keep the left together as it encompasses from liberals who do view solidarity as a value (and therefore aren't hardcore ECONOMIC liberals) to anarchists, and is filled with people who are suspicious of authority and LOVE to debate and dislike compromising on ideals.

 

[TheGame]

No lessons learnt then:

 

[Redlambs]

And more importantly, to all the analysers here: all of this is not specific to the UK!

Sure, other countries don't have Brexit but the divide is similar, the issues are similar. Young people facing an increasingly difficult future don't believe the assertion that just more privatisation, more economic liberalisation will somehow solve the problems it caused in the first place. Most of them do not believe that immigrants and the international Jewish conspiracy are to blame.

Older voters, voters in rural communities or in traditional industries want to at the very least stop the clock, and preferably turn it back. This is happening EVERYWHERE. It's not about Johnson, it's not about Corbyn, it's not even about Trump.

And everywhere, the Left has a harder job than the Right. Being on the right is easy: lower taxes, more deregulation, more redistribution of wealth to the top. How you'll pay for that? By keeping immigrants out and by cutting off those leeches on benefits. Boom, done. Easy. It will trickle down eventually, we promise!

It's also easier to appeal to authoritarians (hence the Cult of the Leader). It's also a lot easier to keep an authoritarian movement in check - because they see obedience to a leader as a value, because it's easy to appeal to national pride, and shit like that. It's a lot harder to keep the left together as it encompasses from liberals who do view solidarity as a value (and therefore aren't hardcore ECONOMIC liberals) to anarchists, and is filled with people who are suspicious of authority and LOVE to debate and dislike compromising on ideals.

Good post, I agree. It is tougher for the left, completely.

Which is why they have to actually look at what goes wrong when things don't work, rather than resort to the same excuses and processes. They've lost a lot of people this election, doing the same thing again is just insane.

 

[CassiusClaymore]

This election had shown that a majority of the country wanted the government to get on with things. By being 20 of c.300 MPs not allowing the government to move forward with their agenda, it was the remainers being extremist.

That's simply not true. Less than 50% of the electorate voted for Pro Brexit parties.

 

[2mufc0]

No lessons learnt then:

I will join the Labour Party just so I can vote against him. What are they thinking?

 

[Ubik]

I will join the Labour Party just so I can vote against him. What are they thinking?

Think it's a piss take.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

Don’t think anyone can say “Back Burgon” without it being a parody.

 

[Ubik]

*Sheds single tear*

 

[Siorac]

Good post, I agree. It is tougher for the left, completely.

Which is why they have to actually look at what goes wrong when things don't work, rather than resort to the same excuses and processes. They've lost a lot of people this election, doing the same thing again is just insane.

Weeeell. Someone posted the data on the age divide earlier. It showed that in the 18-45 range, Conservatives are doing TERRIBLY. Similarly, in the US, if you cap the voting age at say, 50 (I do not support any sort of age cap in practice, this is just a theoretical exercise), Hillary Clinton would have wiped the floor with Trump.

So to keep doing the same thing would be insane for Labour - in the short term. In the long term, the Tories will have to stop doing the same thing over and over and will have to evolve because it's increasingly obvious, that just like the Republicans over there, or Fidesz here in my personal shithole, they have very little appeal to the next generations. I've only seen American studies on the issue but Generation Z, many of whom are yet to become of voting age, seems to be even more left-leaning than Millennials.

It's a huge, and as far as I'm aware, unprecedented age divide, and it's global.

 

[Redlambs]

Weeeell. Someone posted the data on the age divide earlier. It showed that in the 18-45 range, Conservatives are doing TERRIBLY. Similarly, in the US, if you cap the voting age at say, 50 (I do not support any sort of age cap in practice, this is just a theoretical exercise), Hillary Clinton would have wiped the floor with Trump.

So to keep doing the same thing would be insane for Labour - in the short term. In the long term, the Tories will have to stop doing the same thing over and over and will have to evolve because it's increasingly obvious, that just like the Republicans over there, or Fidesz here in my personal shithole, they have very little appeal to the next generations. I've only seen American studies on the issue but Generation Z, many of whom are yet to become of voting age, seems to be even more left-leaning than Millennials.

It's a huge, and as far as I'm aware, unprecedented age divide, and it's global.

So we sit and wait.

Forgetting that as the old die out, the young get old and the cycle is likely to keep repeating. I don't think it's that simple, it's like those saying it's ok because Boris will screw brexit and Labour will get in on the back of that. I just don't think we have all the time to expect these things, in the meantime Labour still need to try imo.

 

[SteveJ]

John McDonnell has said he will not be returning to the shadow cabinet.

 

[Lentwood]

Yeah. You are part of the problem.

Thats a good piece of analysis - you do realise Labour would have won 600 seats based on the votes cast by 18-24 year olds? Yet apparently all I’ve been told by the Twitterati this morning is that Labour voters have rejected “Corbynism” and that we must immediately revert to media-friendly right wing policies to have a hope at the next election

I’m sorry but there’s so much wrong with that I don’t even know where to start.

As I’ve said elsewhere to other posters, I welcome genuine debate but I’ll always resist the kind of simplicity you get from the “experts” on Twitter