Spot on.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Pretty much this. The majority of the population over 40 has no reason to vote Labour, they've seen their wealth grow under the conservatives so that's where they'll vote. 5-10% house price rises every year? What's not to like?
Combined with things like more money to Conservative run constituencies it's not hard to see why people vote conservative. It appeals to people's greed.
As the over 40s heavily outnumber the 18 to 40 year olds in numbers and voter turnout, we'll probably have another 10+ years of conservatives, before the younger lot can gain enough voter power to vote for a hopefully useful alternative (which labour currently is not). Who knows what the state of the country will be by then. Probably £400k average house prices and even larger wealth divide, resulting in a return to a feudal-like class system the Tories so crave.
The sad thing is that neither the Tories nor their average voter realise the damage such an increasing wealth divide will create in the long run on all aspects of society.
On the plus side the budgets might magically increase again.
Worth a read
Falmouth Uni has grown massively in the last decade and its predominately an Art College. In addition to this the number of holiday homes in that area is growing exponentially so it’s no surprise that it’s flipped.
Makes no difference. Wealth inequality hasn't moved much over the last 20-30 years, the biggest spike was in the mid 2000s under a Labour government. People have begun to realise the parties are all the same so vote for the devil you already know.
True. The Jenrick effect.
If only Labour had some actual policies maybe people would know what they stood for.
Claiming parties are all the same with this lot in charge is quite the bold claim.
Not really, budgets were cut all over the place, in Tory as well as Labour held Councils, its where the cuts actually fell that persuaded many that Labour had got hold of the wrong end of the stick; or perhaps they cut in areas that would reflect badly on the Central Government, to prove a point, maybe?
No the real awakening in 'red wall' areas was that for all the years Labour was in power, both locally and nationally very little was done to improve the economic climate in these areas. Yes, there were lots of Government schemes but when the money ran out the schemes collapsed, no real investment was made, but lots of it wasted to buy short term popularity. In red wall areas it was worse, Labour was so sure of the vote in these areas, they hardly made any effort at all.
Boris and the Tories have promised a 'leveling up' agenda, if they achieve half of this they will retain power in these areas, if they fail Labour has to be ready to step in... however its a long hard road, but as someone once said "A journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step".
2017 GE:
So, they won every category of people who work for a living (and a few others who don't), and still fell short. Because they lost one group, who happen not to work for a living.
2019 GE (Con is 1st line, Lab is 2nd) - a catastrophic result in general:
Losses among the 1st 2 groups indeed, mirroring secular losses in every group, even students. But that's very clearly not why they lost the election.
In both cases, the Tory win is *entirely* down to retirees, with the rest of the groups coming out strong for Labour or roughly averaging to zero in 17 and 19 respectively.
People who have just got Tory assistance to buy homes would not take kindly to increased social housing, it would reward the freeloaders and harm their investment/retirement. Here is the Tory PM spelling out the inverse case (pvt housing = Tory voters, social housing = Labour voters, so social housing must not be allowed):
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...e-labour-voters-nick-clegg-says-a7223796.html
Is that a typical voting spread between Con & Lab for healthcare workers?
masochist
/ˈmasəkɪst/
noun
- a person who derives sexual gratification from their own pain or humiliation.
"the roles of masochist and mistress"- (in general use) a person who enjoys an activity that appears to be painful or tedious.
"what kind of masochist would take part in such an experiment?"
- (in general use) a person who enjoys an activity that appears to be painful or tedious.
2017 GE:
So, they won every category of people who work for a living (and a few others who don't), and still fell short. Because they lost one group, who happen not to work for a living.
2019 GE (Con is 1st line, Lab is 2nd) - a catastrophic result in general:
Losses among the 1st 2 groups indeed, mirroring secular losses in every group, even students. But that's very clearly not why they lost the election.
In both cases, the Tory win is *entirely* down to retirees, with the rest of the groups coming out strong for Labour or roughly averaging to zero in 17 and 19 respectively.
You know the working class is not simply those who have jobs, right?
The tweet below it, in the 2019 election, for comparison.
I don't think the above is a "typical" representation, because one of Corbyn's core policies was highlighting the NHS being sold off by the Tories.
But still, in no circumstance should the Tories be more favourable to NHS workers than Labour.
I obviously didn’t look at the tweet thread.
Good christ, what a swing.
Why did this happen?
To make a larger point, due to many historic reasons, there are large generational gaps in homeownership and wealth in the UK. Hence, the "working class" is (or, at least under Corbyn, was) divided quite sharply by age. A retiree with a private house, even a modest one, has very different material interests and concerns than somebody who works 40 hrs a week and rents.
Common sense is not common & British people love to suffer*
*I don't have a credible answer, nothing makes sense.
My only guess is something to do with the vaccine?
This seems rather bereft of common sense.
Short term memories in that case because they were having to create their own PPE just 12 months ago, and in return received 1% pay rise as a reward.
Social class is officially categorised and Labour have been losing ground in the C, D and E groups for years. i.e the working classes and their traditional voter base.
This is a big part of what Labour are reaping up here for sure. Ironically, even good things like investment in education in poorer areas made things worse in some ways. It wasn't matched with investment in infrastructure and jobs in those areas, so they started haemorrhaging bright, young people moving to the cities for better opportunities. So whilst the money went into schools in places like Hartlepool, the benefit of the education it paid for went with the kids to London/Manchester etc. Again, ironically, it's also one of the reasons the demographics of these areas are much friendlier to the Tories these days, it created a generation of people from working class backgrounds who could see the value of a Labour government but gave them no choice but to take their votes to the cities.
There are other, older, (in my view, more instructive) ways of looking at class.
Voting differences between those officially designated classes aren't nearly as wide as differences between young/old or retired/non-retired.
In 2017, Labour's worst class (AB) is -8. Their best (DE) is +3. A 11 point gap. In 2019, Labour's worst class was C2 (-15) and best was C1 (-9). A 6-point gap. There just isn't much explanatory power here for 2 reasons - the largest gap is between C1 and C2, the 2 classes closest on this official categorisation, and the identity of which "class" group does best for which party changes so completely between elections. It shows there are other underlying factors at work.
By contrast, 2017 Labour is - 39 among retirees and +45 among students. A 84-point gap. In 2019, Labour is -45 among retirees and +39 among students, another 84 point gap. Not just are the margins so much bigger, the identity of the group most loyal to a given party is also constant. You will get similar results with retirees vs workers or young vs old.
Last edited:
That can’t be, surely, not with Lozza Fox splitting off some of their vote?
If it is true, then it’s time for a sequel - “The Strange Death of Labour England”.
The problem with using age is that it changes. The 20 year old Labour leaning voter will be a 50 year Conservative one day. They might have a paid off house and a pension by then, but they are still working class at heart. Labour has lost the ability to keep those voters as they age because they feel betrayed by what the party has become.
When will the mayor race be called?
Aiming for tomorrow I believe.
Thanks.
Will anyone claim a late night ballot dump caused the victory of a certain candidate?
sure, age changes, my belief is that it changes you through that very house and pension (which *do* affect the "working class heart").
the question is if the tories can generate enough homeowners at sufficiently early ages to keep winning elections. david cameron understood this: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...e-labour-voters-nick-clegg-says-a7223796.html
now, if class is a matter of capital and ownership rather than "heart", then these trends make a lot more sense.
Either I'm completely out of touch with the rest of the UK but, especially with healthcare workers saying that they will now vote Tory, what are the chances that years from now we'll discover that we had rigged elections in our country?
I know, I know. It's obviously bullshit but I just can't fathom why some of these groups, healthcare workers in particular, would vote Tory. Not voting Labour, fair enough, but turning Blue?!
I know, I know. It's obviously bullshit but I just can't fathom why some of these groups, healthcare workers in particular, would vote Tory. Not voting Labour, fair enough, but turning Blue?!
Well, so far the SNP have increased their majority by two seats. Which is surprising since the British press have spent the whole week and yesterday night saying that an SNP majority was impossible. Funny that.
*Waits for Tory surge*
*Waits for Tory surge*
This isn't true at all, there all kinds of statistics that show that wealth inequality has increase over that period. I can't be bothered to get them for you as I'm pretty ill right now, but I can look them up for you in a day or two.
Just off the top of my head, the % share of money earned by the richest has accelerated, and you have statistics showing how the young have less earnings at every age point up to 40 than those in the previous 2-3 generations.
The proportion of 25-35 year olds living at home was like 25% in the 60s, it rose to 50%+ last year for the first time since the great depression.
It's not really a big claim when incomes haven't really changed much, but house prices have accelerated rapidly and stock markets done so likewise due to loose monetary policy. Those with assets have gotten severely rich and those without have not.
In light of these results and the ones from the last GE, it is starting to look a bit like Labour might be finished in England.
Clear divide between England and Scotland, strongly pointing towards independence, too (which I suppose was always inevitable following the Brexit result).
Not sure how I feel about spending the rest of my days in a much diminished, and very blue, 'United Kingdom of England and Wales'.
Clear divide between England and Scotland, strongly pointing towards independence, too (which I suppose was always inevitable following the Brexit result).
Not sure how I feel about spending the rest of my days in a much diminished, and very blue, 'United Kingdom of England and Wales'.