The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
In other words, the Brownian "lifted out of poverty" via a spreadsheet but in reverse
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still
Millennial is often used as a synonym for young person. Whilst it was true once, it's not really now and will be increasingly wrong in the future. (Sauce myself, a 1981 baby)
Mortgage, (or whole house rental) & kids age. Gen Z is 'da yoof'.
Are you technically a Millennial if you were born in 1981? I know these things are fuzzy at the edges, but the definition of the start of the Millennial generation is pretty clear - hit 18 during or after 2000. Which you didn't. You're (late) Gen X.
Nah, Gen Xers had more fun in the 90s tbh.
I’m a Boomer and I had a ton of fun in the 1990s. Also in the 2010s
30p looks set to vote against the Rwanda bill. Watch him defect to RefUK and then use his "news" show to rain fire and brimstone down on his former colleagues.
He is going to stop being an MP if he stays Tory. And will have little to offer GBeebies afterwards. But if he is a FUKker, that's different. And you never know, he could attract just enough Labour voters to win.
Reading the Telegraph, their overwhelming emphasis seems to be to try and scare Reform UK wallahs back into the Tory fold.
I think they are desperately trying to prevent the Conservatives swinging to the centre with a neo-Cameron before the election. A bit like Khan with ULEZ and Sturgeon with GRR, I think the right of the Tory party really believe their rhetoric. The question is - what will their next wedge issue be?
A very widely held sentiment from aged voters is that Millenials/Gen Z are a bunch of feckless woke slackers. Despite the catastrophic long-term effect on their electoral prospects, the graphs posted above demonstrate that an age based campaign from Tories could work if they successfully inserted a wedge around age 50.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
They'll have to extend the scope of the chart when Gen Z starts voting in serious numbers. They probably won't bother much mind, too much time out of their Tik Toks.
I still think it’s a quaint idea that Gen Z will actually ever go out to vote, rather than continue to moan online about how bad is the government.
I still think it's a quaint idea that Gen Boomer will actually ever go out to vote, rather than continue to moan online about how bad Wokeism is.
The boomers absolutely turn out to vote, which some argue is part of the problem.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
A criticism of the graph is that it might exaggerate because a lot of Millennials are in their 40s now, whereas other generations hit that point at a stage when the Conservatives were doing better generally. But the trend is still unattractive for the blues.
The point is the Conservatives will need to adjust their position to the median position that pulls Millenials back into the fold.
I think generational differences can be overdone as well. Look at it from the other end of the telescope: yes, the Tories have got a big vote amongst the over 65s but when you look at what they're actually voting for it's state largesse, and I'm not sure that's particularly Conservative.
But your argument that "generational differences can be overdone" is rather crucially reliant on the Silent, Boomer, and Gen X lines on the graph. The traditionally correct point is that young people are more left wing, but so were their parents at their age - wait until they are middle aged. Millennials appear to be breaking that to a degree.
I'd also dispute your point about the over 65 vote largely being about state largesse. It was also the case that people became more Conservative-inclined with age back when retirees weren't as relatively well-off as now (the Silent generation in that graph were hitting 60 from the mid 1980s to early 2000s). It also isn't obvious that the largesse towards pensioners is greater under the Conservatives.
I'd put it down more to the fact that the argument for broadly the status quo (traditional conservatism) is greater as you get older. You're quite likely to own your own property, and the long term potential benefits of upsetting the apple cart (which you may never see) are outweighed by the merits of relative stability.
I would recommend this twitter thread to understand why Millenials are not becoming Tory with age.
"NEW: we don’t reflect enough on how severe the housing crisis is, and how it has completely broken the promise society made to young adults.
The situation is especially severe in the UK, where the last time house prices were this unaffordable was in ... 1876."
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
A criticism of the graph is that it might exaggerate because a lot of Millennials are in their 40s now, whereas other generations hit that point at a stage when the Conservatives were doing better generally. But the trend is still unattractive for the blues.
The point is the Conservatives will need to adjust their position to the median position that pulls Millenials back into the fold.
I think generational differences can be overdone as well. Look at it from the other end of the telescope: yes, the Tories have got a big vote amongst the over 65s but when you look at what they're actually voting for it's state largesse, and I'm not sure that's particularly Conservative.
But your argument that "generational differences can be overdone" is rather crucially reliant on the Silent, Boomer, and Gen X lines on the graph. The traditionally correct point is that young people are more left wing, but so were their parents at their age - wait until they are middle aged. Millennials appear to be breaking that to a degree.
I'd also dispute your point about the over 65 vote largely being about state largesse. It was also the case that people became more Conservative-inclined with age back when retirees weren't as relatively well-off as now (the Silent generation in that graph were hitting 60 from the mid 1980s to early 2000s). It also isn't obvious that the largesse towards pensioners is greater under the Conservatives.
I'd put it down more to the fact that the argument for broadly the status quo (traditional conservatism) is greater as you get older. You're quite likely to own your own property, and the long term potential benefits of upsetting the apple cart (which you may never see) are outweighed by the merits of relative stability.
I would recommend this twitter thread to understand why Millenials are not becoming Tory with age.
"NEW: we don’t reflect enough on how severe the housing crisis is, and how it has completely broken the promise society made to young adults.
The situation is especially severe in the UK, where the last time house prices were this unaffordable was in ... 1876."
It’s all very well saying Starmer is crap but he’s heading up a party on course to win over a 100 seat majority, so really he’s done everything right and has been the best leader Labour may have ever had, if they win?
Starmer wants to run the next election as a referendum on the Conservatives.
That might get him a very big majority, but it risks being built on sand.
He's relying on the Tories to hand his first re-election to him on a plate too. I don't think that's beyond the Tories, but it sort of indicates that Starmer is not going to be a PM who is the master of his own destiny.
There's something reminiscent of François Hollande about Starmer.
Charisma free politicians like Sir Keir usually become PM by means of a handover (Brown, May, Sunak) rather than having to charm the public (Cameron, Boris). It’s not as if he has any firm policies he’s selling either, just complains about the other lot constantly. I am certain he will struggle during the campaign during interviews and debates. I’ve said that a lot, will be interesting to see if I was right or wrong
It’s all very well saying Starmer is crap but he’s heading up a party on course to win over a 100 seat majority, so really he’s done everything right and has been the best leader Labour may have ever had, if they win?
Starmer wants to run the next election as a referendum on the Conservatives.
That might get him a very big majority, but it risks being built on sand.
He's relying on the Tories to hand his first re-election to him on a plate too. I don't think that's beyond the Tories, but it sort of indicates that Starmer is not going to be a PM who is the master of his own destiny.
There's something reminiscent of François Hollande about Starmer.
Wait and see. Pre Thatcher becoming PM no-one really thought she was going to be massive game changer. Starmer is doing his best to ensure we find out nothing until after the election. Note that he is not saying he will do nothing; he is only saying he doesn't make promises he won't keep since becoming leader. of course there are millions of promises he won't keep from before this. See the 10 (if it is 10) socialist style pledges.
Starmer may surprise, and he's his own person. Who knows? I do remember thinking that Brown was probably the type of person with a detailed plan of what he wanted to do, and I was bitterly disappointed when it turned out it was all a different sort of performance to the Blairite one.
My feeling is that if you really want to create a big change you have to start talking about it early. It takes a while for people to be convinced, and to end up thinking that it was obvious and all their idea in the first place. If Starmer does enter Number 10 with a big plan, but doesn't talk about it beforehand, I think he's going to struggle to implement it.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
A criticism of the graph is that it might exaggerate because a lot of Millennials are in their 40s now, whereas other generations hit that point at a stage when the Conservatives were doing better generally. But the trend is still unattractive for the blues.
The point is the Conservatives will need to adjust their position to the median position that pulls Millenials back into the fold.
I think generational differences can be overdone as well. Look at it from the other end of the telescope: yes, the Tories have got a big vote amongst the over 65s but when you look at what they're actually voting for it's state largesse, and I'm not sure that's particularly Conservative.
But your argument that "generational differences can be overdone" is rather crucially reliant on the Silent, Boomer, and Gen X lines on the graph. The traditionally correct point is that young people are more left wing, but so were their parents at their age - wait until they are middle aged. Millennials appear to be breaking that to a degree.
I'd also dispute your point about the over 65 vote largely being about state largesse. It was also the case that people became more Conservative-inclined with age back when retirees weren't as relatively well-off as now (the Silent generation in that graph were hitting 60 from the mid 1980s to early 2000s). It also isn't obvious that the largesse towards pensioners is greater under the Conservatives.
I'd put it down more to the fact that the argument for broadly the status quo (traditional conservatism) is greater as you get older. You're quite likely to own your own property, and the long term potential benefits of upsetting the apple cart (which you may never see) are outweighed by the merits of relative stability.
I would recommend this twitter thread to understand why Millenials are not becoming Tory with age.
"NEW: we don’t reflect enough on how severe the housing crisis is, and how it has completely broken the promise society made to young adults.
The situation is especially severe in the UK, where the last time house prices were this unaffordable was in ... 1876."
Some great graphs on follow up posts in the thread.
The number of peers I know who a) still live with their parents b) live in house shares or c) are only able to afford somewhere to live due to familial wealth is staggering. Living in St A flats can be £750-£1000 a month before bills. Working at a university the university accommodation is close to £200 a week for a one room en suite living situation (and private renting is as expensive and as bad quality). Not building council housing for a generation, using house prices as the only way for people to accrue wealth whilst their wages stagnate alongside a sentiment that landlordism is great and should always be a money making scheme have shattered my peers and will continue to be an issue for the younger people now entering the workforce.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
A criticism of the graph is that it might exaggerate because a lot of Millennials are in their 40s now, whereas other generations hit that point at a stage when the Conservatives were doing better generally. But the trend is still unattractive for the blues.
The point is the Conservatives will need to adjust their position to the median position that pulls Millenials back into the fold.
I think generational differences can be overdone as well. Look at it from the other end of the telescope: yes, the Tories have got a big vote amongst the over 65s but when you look at what they're actually voting for it's state largesse, and I'm not sure that's particularly Conservative.
But your argument that "generational differences can be overdone" is rather crucially reliant on the Silent, Boomer, and Gen X lines on the graph. The traditionally correct point is that young people are more left wing, but so were their parents at their age - wait until they are middle aged. Millennials appear to be breaking that to a degree.
I'd also dispute your point about the over 65 vote largely being about state largesse. It was also the case that people became more Conservative-inclined with age back when retirees weren't as relatively well-off as now (the Silent generation in that graph were hitting 60 from the mid 1980s to early 2000s). It also isn't obvious that the largesse towards pensioners is greater under the Conservatives.
I'd put it down more to the fact that the argument for broadly the status quo (traditional conservatism) is greater as you get older. You're quite likely to own your own property, and the long term potential benefits of upsetting the apple cart (which you may never see) are outweighed by the merits of relative stability.
I would recommend this twitter thread to understand why Millenials are not becoming Tory with age.
"NEW: we don’t reflect enough on how severe the housing crisis is, and how it has completely broken the promise society made to young adults.
The situation is especially severe in the UK, where the last time house prices were this unaffordable was in ... 1876."
Houses built before 1850 were significantly larger than those built after. Prior to 1850, the average house in England and Wales had a plot size of 913 square metres but houses built in the next 50 years had an average plot size of only 268 square metres*
Of course the trade off was that much greater affordability came with the construction of housing post 1900 (See Langold near me for a town constructed entirely in the 1930s).
But now we've got both the small houses and the unaffordability has returned.
* That's not going to start magically increasing in the Carolean era...
I see a lot of people have twigged and already flagged this, but just for the avoidance of doubt. The MRP in the Telegraph today is YouGov's, but the claim that it's all because of Reform and it would be a hung Parliament without them is the Telegraph's own claim.
As far I can tell, it's the Telegraph running the sums on what you'd get if you add the Conservative & Reform party votes together, which isn't a very good way of measuring their impact.
Curious. Wouldn't that particular bit of Telegraph spin actually deter right-wing voters from voting Reform? In the past the Telegraph has always had a soft spot for UKIP and the various other Farage vehicles. What's changed?
Nothing, it is now part of uniting the two, under Farage or Boris.
The problem is far more than the DTel indicates. Let us assume that elections are won from the centre, that only Tory and Labour count as possible governments, and 2019 was a unique election, there being no centre to vote for (Brexit v Jezza).
Significant numbers of people are voting LD and Labour instead of Tory. This isn't because the Tories are not right wing enough. A single Tory party whose principles united Reform and the Tory splinters would simply leave a void where the moderate Tory majority once were and leaves the centre/centre left (any combination of Lab/LD/SNP) to clean up.
Because it is practically impossible to create a new successful centre right party the old one, called the Conservatives will have to be it. Older PBers will recall the mirror image of this from 1981 and the SDP. And anyone who thinks the centre right has equivalent figures to Jenkins and Williams around is delusional. And these giants failed
Elections are generally won from the centre, but that is not guaranteed. In tough economic times they are often won by stories instead. And the best story tellers the right has, by far, are Johnson and Farage.
Yes, there are no guarantees, but Farage's record is of winning seats in the Euro parliament which were quasi referenda about the EU (which is not in any deep sense a right wing issue - in the 1980s it was the left who wanted to leave); and Boris has only won a general election in unique circumstances and was unable to sustain the story when events overtook him, either politically or morally.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
A criticism of the graph is that it might exaggerate because a lot of Millennials are in their 40s now, whereas other generations hit that point at a stage when the Conservatives were doing better generally. But the trend is still unattractive for the blues.
The point is the Conservatives will need to adjust their position to the median position that pulls Millenials back into the fold.
I think generational differences can be overdone as well. Look at it from the other end of the telescope: yes, the Tories have got a big vote amongst the over 65s but when you look at what they're actually voting for it's state largesse, and I'm not sure that's particularly Conservative.
But your argument that "generational differences can be overdone" is rather crucially reliant on the Silent, Boomer, and Gen X lines on the graph. The traditionally correct point is that young people are more left wing, but so were their parents at their age - wait until they are middle aged. Millennials appear to be breaking that to a degree.
I'd also dispute your point about the over 65 vote largely being about state largesse. It was also the case that people became more Conservative-inclined with age back when retirees weren't as relatively well-off as now (the Silent generation in that graph were hitting 60 from the mid 1980s to early 2000s). It also isn't obvious that the largesse towards pensioners is greater under the Conservatives.
I'd put it down more to the fact that the argument for broadly the status quo (traditional conservatism) is greater as you get older. You're quite likely to own your own property, and the long term potential benefits of upsetting the apple cart (which you may never see) are outweighed by the merits of relative stability.
I would recommend this twitter thread to understand why Millenials are not becoming Tory with age.
"NEW: we don’t reflect enough on how severe the housing crisis is, and how it has completely broken the promise society made to young adults.
The situation is especially severe in the UK, where the last time house prices were this unaffordable was in ... 1876."
Some great graphs on follow up posts in the thread.
The one with people living with their parents v living as a couple with children is quite extraordinary. I know that everyone will shout housing supply, but I'd like to know the answer to these:
- Scotland's population is set to remain steady (or even decline) over the next 50 years, and even then only sustained by immigration. Why is there a supply issue in this scenario? - What impact has divorce rates had on the number of homes needed for the same population? - Is the number of people in their 20s living alone also contributing to this? - The rise of STL and BTL landlords - Is this all explained by geographical inequality? Edinburgh prices are extraordinary, but Glasgow...
It’s all very well saying Starmer is crap but he’s heading up a party on course to win over a 100 seat majority, so really he’s done everything right and has been the best leader Labour may have ever had, if they win?
Starmer wants to run the next election as a referendum on the Conservatives.
That might get him a very big majority, but it risks being built on sand.
He's relying on the Tories to hand his first re-election to him on a plate too. I don't think that's beyond the Tories, but it sort of indicates that Starmer is not going to be a PM who is the master of his own destiny.
There's something reminiscent of François Hollande about Starmer.
Wait and see. Pre Thatcher becoming PM no-one really thought she was going to be massive game changer. Starmer is doing his best to ensure we find out nothing until after the election. Note that he is not saying he will do nothing; he is only saying he doesn't make promises he won't keep since becoming leader. of course there are millions of promises he won't keep from before this. See the 10 (if it is 10) socialist style pledges.
Starmer may surprise, and he's his own person. Who knows? I do remember thinking that Brown was probably the type of person with a detailed plan of what he wanted to do, and I was bitterly disappointed when it turned out it was all a different sort of performance to the Blairite one.
My feeling is that if you really want to create a big change you have to start talking about it early. It takes a while for people to be convinced, and to end up thinking that it was obvious and all their idea in the first place. If Starmer does enter Number 10 with a big plan, but doesn't talk about it beforehand, I think he's going to struggle to implement it.
Governments do not get elected to make Big Changes first time out. Remember that the Thatcherism we all remember only really started after the 1983 election. Before that her mission was to stop the ship sinking any further after the disasters of the 1970s Health / Wilson / Callaghan governments.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
Yes, the Starmer 2+ terms relies - I think - on the Conservatives not selecting someone electable for the GE after next. However, history suggests that's quite likely - both Lab and Con have tended to retreat into their comfort zone after a big defeat rather than listening to the electorate.
More interesting (but harder) question- if the Conservative Party decided to respond to a tonking by choosing a leader to please the electorate rather than the party membership, who do they go with?
There are different sorts of answers to this, because there are different flavours of right wing (unlike Corbyn, who was the full left wing package).
Both Cameron and Boris 'pleased the electorate' - but I'd suggest Boris did so more than Cameron. Cameron however fulfilled the very useful function of persuading those in high-influence positions not to hate the Tory party quite so much - so to the casual observer he appeared the more popular of the two.
The ultimate 'please the party not the electorate' was Liz Truss. While I think there was a kernel of something in her analysis, there was no evidence at all for an appetite for Trussonomics among the wider electorate. But I don't think they'll go back there. Where they might go is someone like Kemi Badenoch - I don't see her as particularly right wing (I really don't know exactly where she is economically but I don't get the impression that she's Trussite) - but she makes centrists uncomfortable. How the electorate feel about someone like her remains to be seen.
Alternatively, there is Penny, who my impression is is right of Kemi economically but doesn't inspire the same instant fury.
Or there may be a Tom Tugendhat affable centrist type figure but I don't know who that might be or whether the electorate would care if there was.
I don't know what the answer is (either what will happen or what should happen) - but my point is that the 'compromise with the electorate' argument is slightly more complex than it is for Labour.
For a long time now, there's been a very powerful instinctive reaction to disbelieve the evidence that the Tories are facing a catastrophic defeat at the next election.
This is probably a betting opportunity.
I agree with this. Betfair is still offering 31% profit in less than a year for betting on a Labour majority. I you believe the polls combined with all the other evidence then its an easy win.
Clearly DYOR and only bet what you can afford to (or are happy to) lose, but you will struggle to get better interest rates than that right now!
It’s all very well saying Starmer is crap but he’s heading up a party on course to win over a 100 seat majority, so really he’s done everything right and has been the best leader Labour may have ever had, if they win?
Starmer wants to run the next election as a referendum on the Conservatives.
That might get him a very big majority, but it risks being built on sand.
He's relying on the Tories to hand his first re-election to him on a plate too. I don't think that's beyond the Tories, but it sort of indicates that Starmer is not going to be a PM who is the master of his own destiny.
There's something reminiscent of François Hollande about Starmer.
Charisma free politicians like Sir Keir usually become PM by means of a handover (Brown, May, Sunak) rather than having to charm the public (Cameron, Boris). It’s not as if he has any firm policies he’s selling either, just complains about the other lot constantly. I am certain he will struggle during the campaign during interviews and debates. I’ve said that a lot, will be interesting to see if I was right or wrong
How big an outright majority do you think he'll struggle to? Above or below 3 digits?
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
This is bang on in my view. As you say, wind back to early 2020 and our current situation was inconceivable.
In my view, what happens hangs on your 'secret strategic thinking' point. If he pulls something (even quite modest) out of the hat to make the country feel more positive and less poor, I think he'll be safe for a decade.
But if he doesn't change much, I agree with you.
Though its not just the leader. The team around him will come in with energy and ideas which may prove a welcome contrast to the dregs of a long Tory administration that currently seems bereft of either.
Admittedly, depending on your politics the ideas and energy might be a turn off, but my point is that even if Starmer is a mirror of Sunak, the government will probably feel quite different.
I remain hopeful that Starmer has a very well camouflaged rabbit hiding in a hat we haven't noticed yet, but freely admit that I don't have much evidence for this view.
I think the big thing is investment.
The Tories really don't seem to get this - in infrastructure, education or defence - and they have expanded the state to suite their client base, so confusing a form of social democracy with a desire for tax cuts at all costs, which is illogical and out of date.
Starmer needs to be investing £80-100bn a year (not £28bn) and in a mix of infrastructure, education, housing and defence with taxation, including some modest wealth taxes, if required to pay for it.
I've laid out a Tory approach to deliver this in the past, which is based on reigning in the triple lock, and bringing in some social insurance contributions for healthcare to fund it, but tbf their current voting coalition would probably totally collapse if they tried it.
Defence seems like a good investment bet at the moment. If we’re entering the fabled new post-Pax Americana multipolar world then countries are going to need kit.
Rather than target a % of GDP (which I sort of get in principle, as it matches your punch proportionately to what your economy can afford) I'd prefer to work out need. I'd say:
Army needs to go from 75k > 105 k so we can deploy one warfighting division permanently, plus two in an emergency for 3-6 months + HQ if needed, and maintain lighter ops.
Navy is probably short of 2-3 destroyers, several frigates, a sub or two, and lots of logistical support. Most importantly, sailors.
Air Force probably needs 3-4 extra squadrons.
And then you have all the new tech and kit required, plus base infrastructure, and stuff to deal with new threats for hypersonic missile defence and cyber warfare. You also need some redundancy in supplies.
Actually, add that up and you probably do need 3% of GDP on it.
The MoD and the forces need root and branch reform before they get another penny. If they get more money now then >50% will be wasted to zero (or net negative) effect.
There aren't enough people of the right calibre coming in and there are too many leaving. Until somebody in authority asks why this might be and come up with a plan to fix it all thoughts of fantasy flotillas is a counter-productive distraction.
Yes, if you don't first sort out the systemic problems - and procurement is also top of the list - 3% of GDP could easily be spent with little improvement.
About the only thing you could spend heavily on with relatively low risk, and a decent near term improvement in capability, is extra munitions for existing systems. (Which we should do.)
Yes, the Starmer 2+ terms relies - I think - on the Conservatives not selecting someone electable for the GE after next. However, history suggests that's quite likely - both Lab and Con have tended to retreat into their comfort zone after a big defeat rather than listening to the electorate.
Things change quickly (weeks, decades, Father Lenin, etc.) and it wasn't that long ago that tories on here were fully BRICKED UP and oozing blue pre-cum over the notion of a third Johnson term.
SKS is not, what my late mother would describe as, "Personality Plus" so he's going to be very reliant on the team around him to do that which he cannot: articulate and deliver the program in vivid colour.
FWIW I'm fairly optimistic about the shadow Defra team - they seem motivated and focused on sensible low-cost improvements.
It’s all very well saying Starmer is crap but he’s heading up a party on course to win over a 100 seat majority, so really he’s done everything right and has been the best leader Labour may have ever had, if they win?
Starmer wants to run the next election as a referendum on the Conservatives.
That might get him a very big majority, but it risks being built on sand.
He's relying on the Tories to hand his first re-election to him on a plate too. I don't think that's beyond the Tories, but it sort of indicates that Starmer is not going to be a PM who is the master of his own destiny.
There's something reminiscent of François Hollande about Starmer.
Wait and see. Pre Thatcher becoming PM no-one really thought she was going to be massive game changer. Starmer is doing his best to ensure we find out nothing until after the election. Note that he is not saying he will do nothing; he is only saying he doesn't make promises he won't keep since becoming leader. of course there are millions of promises he won't keep from before this. See the 10 (if it is 10) socialist style pledges.
Starmer may surprise, and he's his own person. Who knows? I do remember thinking that Brown was probably the type of person with a detailed plan of what he wanted to do, and I was bitterly disappointed when it turned out it was all a different sort of performance to the Blairite one.
My feeling is that if you really want to create a big change you have to start talking about it early. It takes a while for people to be convinced, and to end up thinking that it was obvious and all their idea in the first place. If Starmer does enter Number 10 with a big plan, but doesn't talk about it beforehand, I think he's going to struggle to implement it.
Or have time to implement it slowly.
Take Casino's investment plan upthread. If Labour sets out a manifesto pledge to start this (which they are already talking about with housing) and links this back to their 'mission' to grow the economy, you could argue that investing more and bigger in education and infrastructure in the middle of a first term wouldn't be talking about something new, but rather expanding an ambition as the economy allows.
I could see a programme like this working for them over a decade or so, and isn't incompatible with their messaging thus far. But I am definitely hopecasting.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
Yes, the Starmer 2+ terms relies - I think - on the Conservatives not selecting someone electable for the GE after next. However, history suggests that's quite likely - both Lab and Con have tended to retreat into their comfort zone after a big defeat rather than listening to the electorate.
More interesting (but harder) question- if the Conservative Party decided to respond to a tonking by choosing a leader to please the electorate rather than the party membership, who do they go with?
There are different sorts of answers to this, because there are different flavours of right wing (unlike Corbyn, who was the full left wing package).
Both Cameron and Boris 'pleased the electorate' - but I'd suggest Boris did so more than Cameron. Cameron however fulfilled the very useful function of persuading those in high-influence positions not to hate the Tory party quite so much - so to the casual observer he appeared the more popular of the two.
The ultimate 'please the party not the electorate' was Liz Truss. While I think there was a kernel of something in her analysis, there was no evidence at all for an appetite for Trussonomics among the wider electorate. But I don't think they'll go back there. Where they might go is someone like Kemi Badenoch - I don't see her as particularly right wing (I really don't know exactly where she is economically but I don't get the impression that she's Trussite) - but she makes centrists uncomfortable. How the electorate feel about someone like her remains to be seen.
Alternatively, there is Penny, who my impression is is right of Kemi economically but doesn't inspire the same instant fury.
Or there may be a Tom Tugendhat affable centrist type figure but I don't know who that might be or whether the electorate would care if there was.
I don't know what the answer is (either what will happen or what should happen) - but my point is that the 'compromise with the electorate' argument is slightly more complex than it is for Labour.
It’s all very well saying Starmer is crap but he’s heading up a party on course to win over a 100 seat majority, so really he’s done everything right and has been the best leader Labour may have ever had, if they win?
Starmer wants to run the next election as a referendum on the Conservatives.
That might get him a very big majority, but it risks being built on sand.
He's relying on the Tories to hand his first re-election to him on a plate too. I don't think that's beyond the Tories, but it sort of indicates that Starmer is not going to be a PM who is the master of his own destiny.
There's something reminiscent of François Hollande about Starmer.
Wait and see. Pre Thatcher becoming PM no-one really thought she was going to be massive game changer. Starmer is doing his best to ensure we find out nothing until after the election. Note that he is not saying he will do nothing; he is only saying he doesn't make promises he won't keep since becoming leader. of course there are millions of promises he won't keep from before this. See the 10 (if it is 10) socialist style pledges.
Starmer may surprise, and he's his own person. Who knows? I do remember thinking that Brown was probably the type of person with a detailed plan of what he wanted to do, and I was bitterly disappointed when it turned out it was all a different sort of performance to the Blairite one.
My feeling is that if you really want to create a big change you have to start talking about it early. It takes a while for people to be convinced, and to end up thinking that it was obvious and all their idea in the first place. If Starmer does enter Number 10 with a big plan, but doesn't talk about it beforehand, I think he's going to struggle to implement it.
Governments do not get elected to make Big Changes first time out. Remember that the Thatcherism we all remember only really started after the 1983 election. Before that her mission was to stop the ship sinking any further after the disasters of the 1970s Health / Wilson / Callaghan governments.
More recently, Blair kept to sensible spending plans until the 2001 election, before Brown let all Hell break loose with his “Investment” in tax credits, and running a deficit at the top of the boom.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
A criticism of the graph is that it might exaggerate because a lot of Millennials are in their 40s now, whereas other generations hit that point at a stage when the Conservatives were doing better generally. But the trend is still unattractive for the blues.
The point is the Conservatives will need to adjust their position to the median position that pulls Millenials back into the fold.
I think generational differences can be overdone as well. Look at it from the other end of the telescope: yes, the Tories have got a big vote amongst the over 65s but when you look at what they're actually voting for it's state largesse, and I'm not sure that's particularly Conservative.
But your argument that "generational differences can be overdone" is rather crucially reliant on the Silent, Boomer, and Gen X lines on the graph. The traditionally correct point is that young people are more left wing, but so were their parents at their age - wait until they are middle aged. Millennials appear to be breaking that to a degree.
I'd also dispute your point about the over 65 vote largely being about state largesse. It was also the case that people became more Conservative-inclined with age back when retirees weren't as relatively well-off as now (the Silent generation in that graph were hitting 60 from the mid 1980s to early 2000s). It also isn't obvious that the largesse towards pensioners is greater under the Conservatives.
I'd put it down more to the fact that the argument for broadly the status quo (traditional conservatism) is greater as you get older. You're quite likely to own your own property, and the long term potential benefits of upsetting the apple cart (which you may never see) are outweighed by the merits of relative stability.
I would recommend this twitter thread to understand why Millenials are not becoming Tory with age.
"NEW: we don’t reflect enough on how severe the housing crisis is, and how it has completely broken the promise society made to young adults.
The situation is especially severe in the UK, where the last time house prices were this unaffordable was in ... 1876."
Some great graphs on follow up posts in the thread.
The one with people living with their parents v living as a couple with children is quite extraordinary. I know that everyone will shout housing supply, but I'd like to know the answer to these:
- Scotland's population is set to remain steady (or even decline) over the next 50 years, and even then only sustained by immigration. Why is there a supply issue in this scenario? - What impact has divorce rates had on the number of homes needed for the same population? - Is the number of people in their 20s living alone also contributing to this? - The rise of STL and BTL landlords - Is this all explained by geographical inequality? Edinburgh prices are extraordinary, but Glasgow...
Thanks. A couple more questions.
What are the characteristics of the areas of the country where this is not a major issue because social housing exists and house prices are manageable for most of those who want to buy. (There are some).
What is the effect of the ever lengthening education/training period before starting work for ever increasing numbers of people.
What are the effects of the assumption that the typical family unit consists of two not one earner.
Why does Londoncentricity continue to the extent it does when the great majority of people from less expensive areas would not even think of being able to live there on financial grounds.
Yes, the Starmer 2+ terms relies - I think - on the Conservatives not selecting someone electable for the GE after next. However, history suggests that's quite likely - both Lab and Con have tended to retreat into their comfort zone after a big defeat rather than listening to the electorate.
Things change quickly (weeks, decades, Father Lenin, etc.) and it wasn't that long ago that tories on here were fully BRICKED UP and oozing blue pre-cum over the notion of a third Johnson term.
SKS is not, what my late mother would describe as, "Personality Plus" so he's going to be very reliant on the team around him to do that which he cannot: articulate and deliver the program in vivid colour.
FWIW I'm fairly optimistic about the shadow Defra team - they seem motivated and focused on sensible low-cost improvements.
I think that we may all be surprised by the improvement in governance that simply comes from no longer calibrating policy in every area to pander to the worst prejudices of the stupidest people.
For a long time now, there's been a very powerful instinctive reaction to disbelieve the evidence that the Tories are facing a catastrophic defeat at the next election.
This is probably a betting opportunity.
I agree with this. Betfair is still offering 31% profit in less than a year for betting on a Labour majority. I you believe the polls combined with all the other evidence then its an easy win.
Clearly DYOR and only bet what you can afford to (or are happy to) lose, but you will struggle to get better interest rates than that right now!
The threefold on Trump GOP Nom, Biden Dem Nom & Labour majority should probably be about 1.2 - there's always a human tendency to underestimate near enough certainties mind.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still
Millennial is often used as a synonym for young person. Whilst it was true once, it's not really now and will be increasingly wrong in the future. (Sauce myself, a 1981 baby)
Mortgage, (or whole house rental) & kids age. Gen Z is 'da yoof'.
Are you technically a Millennial if you were born in 1981? I know these things are fuzzy at the edges, but the definition of the start of the Millennial generation is pretty clear - hit 18 during or after 2000. Which you didn't. You're (late) Gen X.
These definitions are ridiculous imo. The only one that really means anything is "baby boomer" to refer to people born shortly after the second world war.
Or possibly by Russia, which apparently (wartime info etc, so believe what you will) had a raid warning on the Kerch bridge in the same area at the same time.
Even the BBC managed to do that. Not the guardian. Yet it does have details like this:
“When cases did eventually reach court, GMP left the young victims to be “harassed and intimidated by the men who had previously abused them”, sometimes at gunpoint.
GMP took no action in the case of a 15-year-old girl who gave birth to a child of her “pimp”.
One child told GMP that her abusers kept girls in cages and “made them bark like a dog or dress like a baby”,”
THEY KEPT THEM IN CAGES
The scale of this makes the post office scandal look like a minor street crime. Yet somehow I don’t see PB poring over the details for day after day after day
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
A criticism of the graph is that it might exaggerate because a lot of Millennials are in their 40s now, whereas other generations hit that point at a stage when the Conservatives were doing better generally. But the trend is still unattractive for the blues.
The point is the Conservatives will need to adjust their position to the median position that pulls Millenials back into the fold.
I think generational differences can be overdone as well. Look at it from the other end of the telescope: yes, the Tories have got a big vote amongst the over 65s but when you look at what they're actually voting for it's state largesse, and I'm not sure that's particularly Conservative.
But your argument that "generational differences can be overdone" is rather crucially reliant on the Silent, Boomer, and Gen X lines on the graph. The traditionally correct point is that young people are more left wing, but so were their parents at their age - wait until they are middle aged. Millennials appear to be breaking that to a degree.
I'd also dispute your point about the over 65 vote largely being about state largesse. It was also the case that people became more Conservative-inclined with age back when retirees weren't as relatively well-off as now (the Silent generation in that graph were hitting 60 from the mid 1980s to early 2000s). It also isn't obvious that the largesse towards pensioners is greater under the Conservatives.
I'd put it down more to the fact that the argument for broadly the status quo (traditional conservatism) is greater as you get older. You're quite likely to own your own property, and the long term potential benefits of upsetting the apple cart (which you may never see) are outweighed by the merits of relative stability.
I would recommend this twitter thread to understand why Millenials are not becoming Tory with age.
"NEW: we don’t reflect enough on how severe the housing crisis is, and how it has completely broken the promise society made to young adults.
The situation is especially severe in the UK, where the last time house prices were this unaffordable was in ... 1876."
Some great graphs on follow up posts in the thread.
The one with people living with their parents v living as a couple with children is quite extraordinary. I know that everyone will shout housing supply, but I'd like to know the answer to these:
- Scotland's population is set to remain steady (or even decline) over the next 50 years, and even then only sustained by immigration. Why is there a supply issue in this scenario? - What impact has divorce rates had on the number of homes needed for the same population? - Is the number of people in their 20s living alone also contributing to this? - The rise of STL and BTL landlords - Is this all explained by geographical inequality? Edinburgh prices are extraordinary, but Glasgow...
The supply of housing is somewhat localised.
Housing for Edinburgh needs to be in the commutable zone.
So easy to have a shortage of housing in Edinburgh and not in quite nearby bits of Scotland.
Edinburgh’s population is increasing noticeably, as well, IIRC. When you combine that with increasing popularity as a tourist destination and a low rate (relatively) of construction of new properties….
Some great graphs on follow up posts in the thread.
The one with people living with their parents v living as a couple with children is quite extraordinary. I know that everyone will shout housing supply, but I'd like to know the answer to these:
- Scotland's population is set to remain steady (or even decline) over the next 50 years, and even then only sustained by immigration. Why is there a supply issue in this scenario? - What impact has divorce rates had on the number of homes needed for the same population? - Is the number of people in their 20s living alone also contributing to this? - The rise of STL and BTL landlords - Is this all explained by geographical inequality? Edinburgh prices are extraordinary, but Glasgow...
"What impact has divorce rates had on the number of homes needed for the same population?" Divorce rates rose up in the 80s/90s but it plateaued and it's been stable/falling for some time now?
"Is the number of people in their 20s living alone also contributing to this?" This might be mixing up cause and effect: the rise in people living on their own in small flats is because they can't buy houses as couples
"The rise of STL and BTL landlords" Yes, but didn't the Osborne reforms kneecap the BTL market?
I think all your points were correct (apart from the lonely 20s) in around 2010/5, but not necessarily in 2024.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still
Millennial is often used as a synonym for young person. Whilst it was true once, it's not really now and will be increasingly wrong in the future. (Sauce myself, a 1981 baby)
Mortgage, (or whole house rental) & kids age. Gen Z is 'da yoof'.
Are you technically a Millennial if you were born in 1981? I know these things are fuzzy at the edges, but the definition of the start of the Millennial generation is pretty clear - hit 18 during or after 2000. Which you didn't. You're (late) Gen X.
These definitions are ridiculous imo. The only one that really means anything is "baby boomer" to refer to people born shortly after the second world war.
"Baby boomer" doesn't refer to people born "shortly after the second world war". It refers to anyone born in the baby boom that ended over two decades later.
I agree that the edges are very fuzzy. There is no reason to expect an individual born in 1945 to be less similar to someone born in 1943 than they are to someone born in 1966 - quite the reverse.
There is some logic to the broad categories, though. For example, Gen X people were born in an era where the birth rate was very low, which has some advantages and some disadvantages for those within it. In a broad sense, cultural reference points for the different generations vary quite a lot and so on.
You don't need some kind of magic cut-off point in order for it to mean something.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still
Millennial is often used as a synonym for young person. Whilst it was true once, it's not really now and will be increasingly wrong in the future. (Sauce myself, a 1981 baby)
Mortgage, (or whole house rental) & kids age. Gen Z is 'da yoof'.
Are you technically a Millennial if you were born in 1981? I know these things are fuzzy at the edges, but the definition of the start of the Millennial generation is pretty clear - hit 18 during or after 2000. Which you didn't. You're (late) Gen X.
These definitions are ridiculous imo. The only one that really means anything is "baby boomer" to refer to people born shortly after the second world war.
The latest is generation alpha I think. A bit like car reg numbers they start again from the beginning when they run out of letters
Even the BBC managed to do that. Not the guardian. Yet it does have details like this:
“When cases did eventually reach court, GMP left the young victims to be “harassed and intimidated by the men who had previously abused them”, sometimes at gunpoint.
GMP took no action in the case of a 15-year-old girl who gave birth to a child of her “pimp”.
One child told GMP that her abusers kept girls in cages and “made them bark like a dog or dress like a baby”,”
THEY KEPT THEM IN CAGES
The scale of this makes the post office scandal look like a minor street crime. Yet somehow I don’t see PB poring over the details for day after day after day
That's life isn't it. At least we have the Spectator to lead the national conversation about all these things.
Further examples of disproportion: The war in Sudan - much worse than Gaza etc. The refugee crisis in Chad (where?). The general election in Congo. The Rohinga. Islamism in Mali....
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
A criticism of the graph is that it might exaggerate because a lot of Millennials are in their 40s now, whereas other generations hit that point at a stage when the Conservatives were doing better generally. But the trend is still unattractive for the blues.
The point is the Conservatives will need to adjust their position to the median position that pulls Millenials back into the fold.
I think generational differences can be overdone as well. Look at it from the other end of the telescope: yes, the Tories have got a big vote amongst the over 65s but when you look at what they're actually voting for it's state largesse, and I'm not sure that's particularly Conservative.
But your argument that "generational differences can be overdone" is rather crucially reliant on the Silent, Boomer, and Gen X lines on the graph. The traditionally correct point is that young people are more left wing, but so were their parents at their age - wait until they are middle aged. Millennials appear to be breaking that to a degree.
I'd also dispute your point about the over 65 vote largely being about state largesse. It was also the case that people became more Conservative-inclined with age back when retirees weren't as relatively well-off as now (the Silent generation in that graph were hitting 60 from the mid 1980s to early 2000s). It also isn't obvious that the largesse towards pensioners is greater under the Conservatives.
I'd put it down more to the fact that the argument for broadly the status quo (traditional conservatism) is greater as you get older. You're quite likely to own your own property, and the long term potential benefits of upsetting the apple cart (which you may never see) are outweighed by the merits of relative stability.
I would recommend this twitter thread to understand why Millenials are not becoming Tory with age.
"NEW: we don’t reflect enough on how severe the housing crisis is, and how it has completely broken the promise society made to young adults.
The situation is especially severe in the UK, where the last time house prices were this unaffordable was in ... 1876."
Some great graphs on follow up posts in the thread.
The one with people living with their parents v living as a couple with children is quite extraordinary. I know that everyone will shout housing supply, but I'd like to know the answer to these:
- Scotland's population is set to remain steady (or even decline) over the next 50 years, and even then only sustained by immigration. Why is there a supply issue in this scenario? - What impact has divorce rates had on the number of homes needed for the same population? - Is the number of people in their 20s living alone also contributing to this? - The rise of STL and BTL landlords - Is this all explained by geographical inequality? Edinburgh prices are extraordinary, but Glasgow...
The supply of housing is somewhat localised.
Housing for Edinburgh needs to be in the commutable zone.
So easy to have a shortage of housing in Edinburgh and not in quite nearby bits of Scotland.
Edinburgh’s population is increasing noticeably, as well, IIRC. When you combine that with increasing popularity as a tourist destination and a low rate (relatively) of construction of new properties….
They are building absolute shitloads of new housing in & around Edinburgh, a quarter of all new builds in Scotland a couple of years ago - whether that supplies demand I dunno.
South of Edinburgh is a sea of scaffolding and white render.
30p looks set to vote against the Rwanda bill. Watch him defect to RefUK and then use his "news" show to rain fire and brimstone down on his former colleagues.
He is going to stop being an MP if he stays Tory. And will have little to offer GBeebies afterwards. But if he is a FUKker, that's different. And you never know, he could attract just enough Labour voters to win.
If Lee Anderthal joins Reform, the main outcome won't be him taking votes away from Labour, it will be the Conservatives swerving right in sheer panic and thereby nuking their remaining chances at the general election.
Even the BBC managed to do that. Not the guardian. Yet it does have details like this:
“When cases did eventually reach court, GMP left the young victims to be “harassed and intimidated by the men who had previously abused them”, sometimes at gunpoint.
GMP took no action in the case of a 15-year-old girl who gave birth to a child of her “pimp”.
One child told GMP that her abusers kept girls in cages and “made them bark like a dog or dress like a baby”,”
THEY KEPT THEM IN CAGES
The scale of this makes the post office scandal look like a minor street crime. Yet somehow I don’t see PB poring over the details for day after day after day
I've been listening to this story on r5L this morning as I drove back from doing chores, and Naga Munchetty has stressed the perpetrators' ethnicity fairly strongly (and IMV fairly).
On a related note, I'd like the names of the people who refused to cooperate with this review to be placed on front pages.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
The biggest block of voters is anti-current Tories. That group will disperse during a Labour term just like 2019 leave non traditional Tories have dispersed during this parliament.
My estimates of winner of next GE bar one: Starmer 35% Farage 15% Others 50%.
I think voters recognise that it takes time to turn the ship of state around. At the next GE, the message “The Tories fucked this up and we need more time to fix it” may still play very well. Of course, it depends on what happens in Starmer’s first term — events, dear boy, and all that — but I think the predictions of Starmer struggling electorally come across more as wishful thinking.
Interesting long-range election preview from Oxfordshire's indie news blog. They seem to think that three county seats could fall to the LibDems, one to Labour, and can't call the fifth.
It’s all very well saying Starmer is crap but he’s heading up a party on course to win over a 100 seat majority, so really he’s done everything right and has been the best leader Labour may have ever had, if they win?
Starmer wants to run the next election as a referendum on the Conservatives.
That might get him a very big majority, but it risks being built on sand.
He's relying on the Tories to hand his first re-election to him on a plate too. I don't think that's beyond the Tories, but it sort of indicates that Starmer is not going to be a PM who is the master of his own destiny.
There's something reminiscent of François Hollande about Starmer.
Wait and see. Pre Thatcher becoming PM no-one really thought she was going to be massive game changer. Starmer is doing his best to ensure we find out nothing until after the election. Note that he is not saying he will do nothing; he is only saying he doesn't make promises he won't keep since becoming leader. of course there are millions of promises he won't keep from before this. See the 10 (if it is 10) socialist style pledges.
Starmer may surprise, and he's his own person. Who knows? I do remember thinking that Brown was probably the type of person with a detailed plan of what he wanted to do, and I was bitterly disappointed when it turned out it was all a different sort of performance to the Blairite one.
My feeling is that if you really want to create a big change you have to start talking about it early. It takes a while for people to be convinced, and to end up thinking that it was obvious and all their idea in the first place. If Starmer does enter Number 10 with a big plan, but doesn't talk about it beforehand, I think he's going to struggle to implement it.
Governments do not get elected to make Big Changes first time out. Remember that the Thatcherism we all remember only really started after the 1983 election. Before that her mission was to stop the ship sinking any further after the disasters of the 1970s Health / Wilson / Callaghan governments.
I disagree with that. Thatcher did make big changes to the economy (including the start of resetting industrial relations) in 1979-83. But what governments can't do is make Big Changes Everywhere all at once, all at the beginning.
Why doesn’t Sunak just make the Rwanda thing a confidence vote? The tory MPs are genetically 98% kobold and therefore stupid and cruel but somehow possessed of a cunning survival instinct. They aren't going to bring the government down over it. As much as the rest of the country would like that.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
Yes, the Starmer 2+ terms relies - I think - on the Conservatives not selecting someone electable for the GE after next. However, history suggests that's quite likely - both Lab and Con have tended to retreat into their comfort zone after a big defeat rather than listening to the electorate.
More interesting (but harder) question- if the Conservative Party decided to respond to a tonking by choosing a leader to please the electorate rather than the party membership, who do they go with?
They also need policies. The main suggestions appear to be: make Brexit work (somehow); reheated Trussism (cut taxes and cross your fingers); or hating on immigrants. I am unconvinced any of these are going to deliver electoral success.
30p looks set to vote against the Rwanda bill. Watch him defect to RefUK and then use his "news" show to rain fire and brimstone down on his former colleagues.
He is going to stop being an MP if he stays Tory. And will have little to offer GBeebies afterwards. But if he is a FUKker, that's different. And you never know, he could attract just enough Labour voters to win.
Anderson has some chance of keeping his seat on a split vote between Labour and the Ashfield Independent. It's a politically weird place, and he's probably best off sticking to his line of being a Conservative maverick. He'd not win if there was an election today, I am sure, but there isn't one today.
So I doubt he'd defect this side of an election. All bets are off if he does indeed lose.
CDU/CSU 27% AfD 18% SPD 14% BSW 14% Greens 12% FDP 4% Left 3% FW 2% Others 5%
As I believe CDU/CSU and SPD and Greens will all rule out any coalition with BSW (or AfD), and others won't make the cut, on this poll it would leave CDU/CSU + SPD + Greens as the only possible coalition, which is unlikely to please anyone...
Yes, the emergence of a populist left party seems potentially to take the wind out of the sails of the populist right AfD (who drop 4 points on this showing) and the conservative CDU (-3), with only 1-point losses for the SPD and Left. As you say it's possibly dodgy, since reminding people of one party draws attention to it. But as the party has only existed for a couple of weeks it may have the potential to grow.
Whether it deserves to is a different question. It seems to hinge entirely on the popularity of its leader, and general contrarinism on everything.
Not sure it's just contrarianism, I think there's a gap in the market for a party which is leftwing on economic issues, and also in favour of less immigration, and isn't particularly 'woke'.
For example, they say they are in favour of strengthening collective bargaining rights and unions, higher pensions and benefits, more investment in education and infrastructure, loosening the debt brake, taxing wealth. Against more immigration, against phasing out fossil fuels.
But their foreign policy positions (stop supplying weapons to Ukraine, end sanctions on Russia) are only shared with the AfD, who BSW have already ruled out working with. So other parties will keep their distance. Even more so than from the Left, who are currently in coalition in 3 state governments (with SPD and Greens - Bremen and Thuringia, or just SPD - MeckPomm).
Even the BBC managed to do that. Not the guardian. Yet it does have details like this:
“When cases did eventually reach court, GMP left the young victims to be “harassed and intimidated by the men who had previously abused them”, sometimes at gunpoint.
GMP took no action in the case of a 15-year-old girl who gave birth to a child of her “pimp”.
One child told GMP that her abusers kept girls in cages and “made them bark like a dog or dress like a baby”,”
THEY KEPT THEM IN CAGES
The scale of this makes the post office scandal look like a minor street crime. Yet somehow I don’t see PB poring over the details for day after day after day
I've been listening to this story on r5L this morning as I drove back from doing chores, and Naga Munchetty has stressed the perpetrators' ethnicity fairly strongly (and IMV fairly).
On a related note, I'd like the names of the people who refused to cooperate with this review to be placed on front pages.
There are so many mind boggling and depressing details in this story, it’s difficult to know where to begin
1. The police actively tried to silence the first whistleblowers with threats of prosecution etc. That IS reminiscent of the post office scandal
2. According to one of the whistleblowers - Maggie Oliver - this systemised abuse (with the same racial dynamic) is still happening now in multiple towns
I mean: WTF
I can actually empathise with those who would simply rather not think about it. I do the same with Gaza. It’s so grim and bleak you avert the gaze. Plus of course for a lot of people it raises deeply uncomfortable issues that might “be exploited by the far right” and that is an understandable fear
Why doesn’t Sunak just make the Rwanda thing a confidence vote? The tory MPs are genetically 98% kobold and therefore stupid and cruel but somehow possessed of a cunning survival instinct. They aren't going to bring the government down over it. As much as the rest of the country would like that.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still
Millennial is often used as a synonym for young person. Whilst it was true once, it's not really now and will be increasingly wrong in the future. (Sauce myself, a 1981 baby)
Mortgage, (or whole house rental) & kids age. Gen Z is 'da yoof'.
Are you technically a Millennial if you were born in 1981? I know these things are fuzzy at the edges, but the definition of the start of the Millennial generation is pretty clear - hit 18 during or after 2000. Which you didn't. You're (late) Gen X.
1981 seems generally accepted as millenial. Some UK govts studies including 1980 too.
The standard definition of millennial is born 1981-1996. But it's also absurd to say that someone born in 1981 has more in common with someone born in 1996 than someone born in 1979.
Born in 1981, you probably grew up (as I did) in a home with a rotary dial phone, four TV channels, and if you were very lucky, rudimentary internet access via 56k modem by the time you were ready to leave home and go to uni (if you went).
At uni, you would have just had to start paying fees (introduced 1998, cheers Blair) but you would have paid £3000 in total for a 3 year course. You would have been old enough to drink when the twin towers fell (I remember exactly where I was when the second plane hit: the pub).
You would have graduated in the early 2000s, as the economy was picking up in the post dotcom crash. You probably found it relatively easy to get work, though you might have been laid off in 2008. Still, if you worked hard, you probably managed to buy a house / flat somewhere between 2006 and 2012, so your mortgage is half paid off by now.
Born in 1996, you would have had broadband internet access from the age of preschool, and you would have been 9 years old when YouTube launched. You were five years old when the twin towers fell. You went to uni in 2014, so you would have been studying during the Brexit vote. For the privilege, you could be paying £9000 a year (£27k) in total for your course.
I'll let you figure out the rest of the story - graduating into a low growth, stagnant economy with sky high house prices and no chance of ever owning a home.
So it's ridiculous to lump "millennials" together as a group - as a term it's pretty useless.
On Reform, I listened on R5 last night to an interview with Rupert Lowe, who is apparently RefUK's spokesperson on business and agriculture. Apart from his intensely irritating habit of starting every answer with "at the end of the day", he denied that the party was right wing. He then proceeded to suggest that man-made climate change was a myth, gave some hints of Covid and vaccine denial, suggested that the current government was rather left-wing, and generally gave every impression of being a very right-wing populist nationalist with some bonkers ideas somewhat lacking evidence. Although there's obviously a market for these ideas, it's fairly small. If this is anything to go by, I suspect Reform could fall apart under the spotlight of a GE campaign and have little impact.
Even the BBC managed to do that. Not the guardian. Yet it does have details like this:
“When cases did eventually reach court, GMP left the young victims to be “harassed and intimidated by the men who had previously abused them”, sometimes at gunpoint.
GMP took no action in the case of a 15-year-old girl who gave birth to a child of her “pimp”.
One child told GMP that her abusers kept girls in cages and “made them bark like a dog or dress like a baby”,”
THEY KEPT THEM IN CAGES
The scale of this makes the post office scandal look like a minor street crime. Yet somehow I don’t see PB poring over the details for day after day after day
I've been listening to this story on r5L this morning as I drove back from doing chores, and Naga Munchetty has stressed the perpetrators' ethnicity fairly strongly (and IMV fairly).
On a related note, I'd like the names of the people who refused to cooperate with this review to be placed on front pages.
Note that despite “everyone knew”, no senior figures being suggested for even sanction, let alone prosecution.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still
Millennial is often used as a synonym for young person. Whilst it was true once, it's not really now and will be increasingly wrong in the future. (Sauce myself, a 1981 baby)
Mortgage, (or whole house rental) & kids age. Gen Z is 'da yoof'.
Are you technically a Millennial if you were born in 1981? I know these things are fuzzy at the edges, but the definition of the start of the Millennial generation is pretty clear - hit 18 during or after 2000. Which you didn't. You're (late) Gen X.
My son, born 1983, says he is generation X because at school sports you only got recognition for coming first , second or third. For the millennials , everyone gets a certificate just for taking part.
Yes, the Starmer 2+ terms relies - I think - on the Conservatives not selecting someone electable for the GE after next. However, history suggests that's quite likely - both Lab and Con have tended to retreat into their comfort zone after a big defeat rather than listening to the electorate.
Things change quickly (weeks, decades, Father Lenin, etc.) and it wasn't that long ago that tories on here were fully BRICKED UP and oozing blue pre-cum over the notion of a third Johnson term.
SKS is not, what my late mother would describe as, "Personality Plus" so he's going to be very reliant on the team around him to do that which he cannot: articulate and deliver the program in vivid colour.
FWIW I'm fairly optimistic about the shadow Defra team - they seem motivated and focused on sensible low-cost improvements.
I think that we may all be surprised by the improvement in governance that simply comes from no longer calibrating policy in every area to pander to the worst prejudices of the stupidest people.
Exactly right. That is the lowest of overhanging fruit and it's pretty big and juicy. The new Labour government (gosh I do like typing those words) need do nothing but pluck and eat it for things to be looking a whole lot better.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
Yes, the Starmer 2+ terms relies - I think - on the Conservatives not selecting someone electable for the GE after next. However, history suggests that's quite likely - both Lab and Con have tended to retreat into their comfort zone after a big defeat rather than listening to the electorate.
More interesting (but harder) question- if the Conservative Party decided to respond to a tonking by choosing a leader to please the electorate rather than the party membership, who do they go with?
There are different sorts of answers to this, because there are different flavours of right wing (unlike Corbyn, who was the full left wing package).
Both Cameron and Boris 'pleased the electorate' - but I'd suggest Boris did so more than Cameron. Cameron however fulfilled the very useful function of persuading those in high-influence positions not to hate the Tory party quite so much - so to the casual observer he appeared the more popular of the two.
The ultimate 'please the party not the electorate' was Liz Truss. While I think there was a kernel of something in her analysis, there was no evidence at all for an appetite for Trussonomics among the wider electorate. But I don't think they'll go back there. Where they might go is someone like Kemi Badenoch - I don't see her as particularly right wing (I really don't know exactly where she is economically but I don't get the impression that she's Trussite) - but she makes centrists uncomfortable. How the electorate feel about someone like her remains to be seen.
Alternatively, there is Penny, who my impression is is right of Kemi economically but doesn't inspire the same instant fury.
Or there may be a Tom Tugendhat affable centrist type figure but I don't know who that might be or whether the electorate would care if there was.
I don't know what the answer is (either what will happen or what should happen) - but my point is that the 'compromise with the electorate' argument is slightly more complex than it is for Labour.
On Reform, I listened on R5 last night to an interview with Rupert Lowe, who is apparently RefUK's spokesperson on business and agriculture. Apart from his intensely irritating habit of starting every answer with "at the end of the day", he denied that the party was right wing. He then proceeded to suggest that man-made climate change was a myth, gave some hints of Covid and vaccine denial, suggested that the current government was rather left-wing, and generally gave every impression of being a very right-wing populist nationalist with some bonkers ideas somewhat lacking evidence. Although there's obviously a market for these ideas, it's fairly small. If this is anything to go by, I suspect Reform could fall apart under the spotlight of a GE campaign and have little impact.
Fun fact.
Rupert Lowe was Chairman/owner of Sunak's football team Southampton.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
The biggest block of voters is anti-current Tories. That group will disperse during a Labour term just like 2019 leave non traditional Tories have dispersed during this parliament.
My estimates of winner of next GE bar one: Starmer 35% Farage 15% Others 50%.
I think voters recognise that it takes time to turn the ship of state around. At the next GE, the message “The Tories fucked this up and we need more time to fix it” may still play very well. Of course, it depends on what happens in Starmer’s first term — events, dear boy, and all that — but I think the predictions of Starmer struggling electorally come across more as wishful thinking.
That plays well against any Tory leader not called Farage or Boris. Fairly obviously I do not hope for Farage or the second coming of Bozo as PM. Nor do I want Trump as President but happy to bet on such occurences when the odds are favourable and these charlatans are underestimated.
Yes, the Starmer 2+ terms relies - I think - on the Conservatives not selecting someone electable for the GE after next. However, history suggests that's quite likely - both Lab and Con have tended to retreat into their comfort zone after a big defeat rather than listening to the electorate.
Things change quickly (weeks, decades, Father Lenin, etc.) and it wasn't that long ago that tories on here were fully BRICKED UP and oozing blue pre-cum over the notion of a third Johnson term.
SKS is not, what my late mother would describe as, "Personality Plus" so he's going to be very reliant on the team around him to do that which he cannot: articulate and deliver the program in vivid colour.
FWIW I'm fairly optimistic about the shadow Defra team - they seem motivated and focused on sensible low-cost improvements.
I think that we may all be surprised by the improvement in governance that simply comes from no longer calibrating policy in every area to pander to the worst prejudices of the stupidest people.
Exactly right. That is the lowest of overhanging fruit and it's pretty big and juicy. The new Labour government (gosh I do like typing those words) need do nothing but pluck and eat it for things to be looking a whole lot better.
Hopefully there'll be no pandering to the editors of newspapers that pander to the worst prejudices of the stupidest people.
I could be wrong, but I think this is the first Guardian article to take the whole UFO thing so seriously it actually says Yeah, there may be something here and Yeah, it may be non human intelligence
And if it is - as the article says - what will that do to us? And how will we react to the revelation that - allegedly - we have been lied to for decades?
Yes, the Starmer 2+ terms relies - I think - on the Conservatives not selecting someone electable for the GE after next. However, history suggests that's quite likely - both Lab and Con have tended to retreat into their comfort zone after a big defeat rather than listening to the electorate.
Things change quickly (weeks, decades, Father Lenin, etc.) and it wasn't that long ago that tories on here were fully BRICKED UP and oozing blue pre-cum over the notion of a third Johnson term.
SKS is not, what my late mother would describe as, "Personality Plus" so he's going to be very reliant on the team around him to do that which he cannot: articulate and deliver the program in vivid colour.
FWIW I'm fairly optimistic about the shadow Defra team - they seem motivated and focused on sensible low-cost improvements.
I think that we may all be surprised by the improvement in governance that simply comes from no longer calibrating policy in every area to pander to the worst prejudices of the stupidest people.
Exactly right. That is the lowest of overhanging fruit and it's pretty big and juicy. The new Labour government (gosh I do like typing those words) need do nothing but pluck and eat it for things to be looking a whole lot better.
We all have to hope that just going in a consistent direction (even if that direction is dweeby triangulating soft leftism) is an improvement over ripping everything up and starting again every three years (months/weeks).
Intuitively, there have to be wins from Just Not Being Dumb- any thoughts on what they are?
(And as for the Starmer is Boring thing, that might work if he can be the calm centre everything else revolves around. Major did it when he was sucessful. Be Kenneth Horne and let the others be Kenneth Williams and Hugh Paddick.)
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
This is bang on in my view. As you say, wind back to early 2020 and our current situation was inconceivable.
In my view, what happens hangs on your 'secret strategic thinking' point. If he pulls something (even quite modest) out of the hat to make the country feel more positive and less poor, I think he'll be safe for a decade.
But if he doesn't change much, I agree with you.
Though its not just the leader. The team around him will come in with energy and ideas which may prove a welcome contrast to the dregs of a long Tory administration that currently seems bereft of either.
Admittedly, depending on your politics the ideas and energy might be a turn off, but my point is that even if Starmer is a mirror of Sunak, the government will probably feel quite different.
I remain hopeful that Starmer has a very well camouflaged rabbit hiding in a hat we haven't noticed yet, but freely admit that I don't have much evidence for this view.
I think the big thing is investment.
The Tories really don't seem to get this - in infrastructure, education or defence - and they have expanded the state to suite their client base, so confusing a form of social democracy with a desire for tax cuts at all costs, which is illogical and out of date.
Starmer needs to be investing £80-100bn a year (not £28bn) and in a mix of infrastructure, education, housing and defence with taxation, including some modest wealth taxes, if required to pay for it.
I've laid out a Tory approach to deliver this in the past, which is based on reigning in the triple lock, and bringing in some social insurance contributions for healthcare to fund it, but tbf their current voting coalition would probably totally collapse if they tried it.
Defence seems like a good investment bet at the moment. If we’re entering the fabled new post-Pax Americana multipolar world then countries are going to need kit.
Rather than target a % of GDP (which I sort of get in principle, as it matches your punch proportionately to what your economy can afford) I'd prefer to work out need. I'd say:
Army needs to go from 75k > 105 k so we can deploy one warfighting division permanently, plus two in an emergency for 3-6 months + HQ if needed, and maintain lighter ops.
Navy is probably short of 2-3 destroyers, several frigates, a sub or two, and lots of logistical support. Most importantly, sailors.
Air Force probably needs 3-4 extra squadrons.
And then you have all the new tech and kit required, plus base infrastructure, and stuff to deal with new threats for hypersonic missile defence and cyber warfare. You also need some redundancy in supplies.
Actually, add that up and you probably do need 3% of GDP on it.
The MoD and the forces need root and branch reform before they get another penny. If they get more money now then >50% will be wasted to zero (or net negative) effect.
There aren't enough people of the right calibre coming in and there are too many leaving. Until somebody in authority asks why this might be and come up with a plan to fix it all thoughts of fantasy flotillas is a counter-productive distraction.
Even the BBC managed to do that. Not the guardian. Yet it does have details like this:
“When cases did eventually reach court, GMP left the young victims to be “harassed and intimidated by the men who had previously abused them”, sometimes at gunpoint.
GMP took no action in the case of a 15-year-old girl who gave birth to a child of her “pimp”.
One child told GMP that her abusers kept girls in cages and “made them bark like a dog or dress like a baby”,”
THEY KEPT THEM IN CAGES
The scale of this makes the post office scandal look like a minor street crime. Yet somehow I don’t see PB poring over the details for day after day after day
I've been listening to this story on r5L this morning as I drove back from doing chores, and Naga Munchetty has stressed the perpetrators' ethnicity fairly strongly (and IMV fairly).
On a related note, I'd like the names of the people who refused to cooperate with this review to be placed on front pages.
Note that despite “everyone knew”, no senior figures being suggested for even sanction, let alone prosecution.
How can you NOT prosecute for rape when a 15 year old gives birth?
Another bewildering detail. The cops are normally quite keen on slam dunk rape cases with a guaranteed conviction at the end. It makes them look good statistically and it pleases several important lobbies
Well, this is about as slam dunk as it gets. Even if the victim refuses to give evidence (dunno if that happened) you have inarguable medical and genetic evidence of rape
What was going on in Rochdale? And how come the coppers involved aren’t being dragged over the coals? Their identity cannot be a secret
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
This is bang on in my view. As you say, wind back to early 2020 and our current situation was inconceivable.
In my view, what happens hangs on your 'secret strategic thinking' point. If he pulls something (even quite modest) out of the hat to make the country feel more positive and less poor, I think he'll be safe for a decade.
But if he doesn't change much, I agree with you.
Though its not just the leader. The team around him will come in with energy and ideas which may prove a welcome contrast to the dregs of a long Tory administration that currently seems bereft of either.
Admittedly, depending on your politics the ideas and energy might be a turn off, but my point is that even if Starmer is a mirror of Sunak, the government will probably feel quite different.
I remain hopeful that Starmer has a very well camouflaged rabbit hiding in a hat we haven't noticed yet, but freely admit that I don't have much evidence for this view.
I think the big thing is investment.
The Tories really don't seem to get this - in infrastructure, education or defence - and they have expanded the state to suite their client base, so confusing a form of social democracy with a desire for tax cuts at all costs, which is illogical and out of date.
Starmer needs to be investing £80-100bn a year (not £28bn) and in a mix of infrastructure, education, housing and defence with taxation, including some modest wealth taxes, if required to pay for it.
I've laid out a Tory approach to deliver this in the past, which is based on reigning in the triple lock, and bringing in some social insurance contributions for healthcare to fund it, but tbf their current voting coalition would probably totally collapse if they tried it.
Again, agree almost entirely. I'd add green infrastructure (with the caveat of the danger of trying to pick winners, it is clearly going to be a growth area. Encouraging more innovation along the lines of Octopus energy's use of smart meters to smooth demand curves would be sensible - we are now exporting this globally). I'd probably remove defence from your list; whilst vital for strategic reasons it doesn't really feel like investment in the same way education, housing, infrastructure does.
Thanks. Investment in defence is necessary to protect and secure everything else, including our economy and way of life.
We've got to move on from thinking we can just have it on the cheap, hiding under the skirts of the US, with our fingers in our ears.
Sadly, the world has changed.
The reliance on the US is not just military. What percentage of UK household and pension assets are directly held in the US? What percentage is indirectly reliant on US asset valuations and global hegemony?
Whilst things have been bad for a while now, there is certainly scope for them getting much worse, fairly quickly in the event of a Trump win.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
Even the BBC managed to do that. Not the guardian. Yet it does have details like this:
“When cases did eventually reach court, GMP left the young victims to be “harassed and intimidated by the men who had previously abused them”, sometimes at gunpoint.
GMP took no action in the case of a 15-year-old girl who gave birth to a child of her “pimp”.
One child told GMP that her abusers kept girls in cages and “made them bark like a dog or dress like a baby”,”
THEY KEPT THEM IN CAGES
The scale of this makes the post office scandal look like a minor street crime. Yet somehow I don’t see PB poring over the details for day after day after day
I've been listening to this story on r5L this morning as I drove back from doing chores, and Naga Munchetty has stressed the perpetrators' ethnicity fairly strongly (and IMV fairly).
On a related note, I'd like the names of the people who refused to cooperate with this review to be placed on front pages.
Note that despite “everyone knew”, no senior figures being suggested for even sanction, let alone prosecution.
On Reform, I listened on R5 last night to an interview with Rupert Lowe, who is apparently RefUK's spokesperson on business and agriculture. Apart from his intensely irritating habit of starting every answer with "at the end of the day", he denied that the party was right wing. He then proceeded to suggest that man-made climate change was a myth, gave some hints of Covid and vaccine denial, suggested that the current government was rather left-wing, and generally gave every impression of being a very right-wing populist nationalist with some bonkers ideas somewhat lacking evidence. Although there's obviously a market for these ideas, it's fairly small. If this is anything to go by, I suspect Reform could fall apart under the spotlight of a GE campaign and have little impact.
Fun fact.
Rupert Lowe was Chairman/owner of Sunak's football team Southampton.
Isn't the manager of Southampton a member of the Green Party? Well done to them on not letting politics keep them permanently furious at one another.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still
Millennial is often used as a synonym for young person. Whilst it was true once, it's not really now and will be increasingly wrong in the future. (Sauce myself, a 1981 baby)
Mortgage, (or whole house rental) & kids age. Gen Z is 'da yoof'.
Are you technically a Millennial if you were born in 1981? I know these things are fuzzy at the edges, but the definition of the start of the Millennial generation is pretty clear - hit 18 during or after 2000. Which you didn't. You're (late) Gen X.
Nah, Gen Xers had more fun in the 90s tbh.
I’m a Boomer and I had a ton of fun in the 1990s. Also in the 2010s
On Reform, I listened on R5 last night to an interview with Rupert Lowe, who is apparently RefUK's spokesperson on business and agriculture. Apart from his intensely irritating habit of starting every answer with "at the end of the day", he denied that the party was right wing. He then proceeded to suggest that man-made climate change was a myth, gave some hints of Covid and vaccine denial, suggested that the current government was rather left-wing, and generally gave every impression of being a very right-wing populist nationalist with some bonkers ideas somewhat lacking evidence. Although there's obviously a market for these ideas, it's fairly small. If this is anything to go by, I suspect Reform could fall apart under the spotlight of a GE campaign and have little impact.
Quite interesting that 'right wing is good' has pretty much completely mutated into 'we're not right wing actually'. Lack of confidence in their position on the political spectrum?
Even the BBC managed to do that. Not the guardian. Yet it does have details like this:
“When cases did eventually reach court, GMP left the young victims to be “harassed and intimidated by the men who had previously abused them”, sometimes at gunpoint.
GMP took no action in the case of a 15-year-old girl who gave birth to a child of her “pimp”.
One child told GMP that her abusers kept girls in cages and “made them bark like a dog or dress like a baby”,”
THEY KEPT THEM IN CAGES
The scale of this makes the post office scandal look like a minor street crime. Yet somehow I don’t see PB poring over the details for day after day after day
I've been listening to this story on r5L this morning as I drove back from doing chores, and Naga Munchetty has stressed the perpetrators' ethnicity fairly strongly (and IMV fairly).
On a related note, I'd like the names of the people who refused to cooperate with this review to be placed on front pages.
Note that despite “everyone knew”, no senior figures being suggested for even sanction, let alone prosecution.
How can you NOT prosecute for rape when a 15 year old gives birth?
Another bewildering detail. The cops are normally quite keen on slam dunk rape cases with a guaranteed conviction at the end. It makes them look good statistically and it pleases several important lobbies
Well, this is about as slam dunk as it gets. Even if the victim refuses to give evidence (dunno if that happened) you have inarguable medical and genetic evidence of rape
What was going on in Rochdale? And how come the coppers involved aren’t being dragged over the coals? Their identity cannot be a secret
In one case in Rochdale, men were literally caught in the act, by police.
The girl was arrested for being drunk and disorderly, IIRC.
I could be wrong, but I think this is the first Guardian article to take the whole UFO thing so seriously it actually says Yeah, there may be something here and Yeah, it may be non human intelligence
And if it is - as the article says - what will that do to us? And how will we react to the revelation that - allegedly - we have been lied to for decades?
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
The biggest block of voters is anti-current Tories. That group will disperse during a Labour term just like 2019 leave non traditional Tories have dispersed during this parliament.
My estimates of winner of next GE bar one: Starmer 35% Farage 15% Others 50%.
I think voters recognise that it takes time to turn the ship of state around. At the next GE, the message “The Tories fucked this up and we need more time to fix it” may still play very well. Of course, it depends on what happens in Starmer’s first term — events, dear boy, and all that — but I think the predictions of Starmer struggling electorally come across more as wishful thinking.
That plays well against any Tory leader not called Farage or Boris. Fairly obviously I do not hope for Farage or the second coming of Bozo as PM. Nor do I want Trump as President but happy to bet on such occurences when the odds are favourable and these charlatans are underestimated.
Johnson and Farage are both very unpopular with a lot of the electorate. Johnson has too much baggage; I don’t believe he can ever make a Churchillian return. Farage is popular with a segment of the electorate, but that doesn’t mean he is popular with enough.
We shouldn’t underestimate populist charlatans, but don’t look to yesteryear’s populist charlatans. The populist charlatan to worry about will be someone we’ve not yet heard of.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still
Millennial is often used as a synonym for young person. Whilst it was true once, it's not really now and will be increasingly wrong in the future. (Sauce myself, a 1981 baby)
Mortgage, (or whole house rental) & kids age. Gen Z is 'da yoof'.
Are you technically a Millennial if you were born in 1981? I know these things are fuzzy at the edges, but the definition of the start of the Millennial generation is pretty clear - hit 18 during or after 2000. Which you didn't. You're (late) Gen X.
1981 seems generally accepted as millenial. Some UK govts studies including 1980 too.
The standard definition of millennial is born 1981-1996. But it's also absurd to say that someone born in 1981 has more in common with someone born in 1996 than someone born in 1979.
Born in 1981, you probably grew up (as I did) in a home with a rotary dial phone, four TV channels, and if you were very lucky, rudimentary internet access via 56k modem by the time you were ready to leave home and go to uni (if you went).
At uni, you would have just had to start paying fees (introduced 1998, cheers Blair) but you would have paid £3000 in total for a 3 year course. You would have been old enough to drink when the twin towers fell (I remember exactly where I was when the second plane hit: the pub).
You would have graduated in the early 2000s, as the economy was picking up in the post dotcom crash. You probably found it relatively easy to get work, though you might have been laid off in 2008. Still, if you worked hard, you probably managed to buy a house / flat somewhere between 2006 and 2012, so your mortgage is half paid off by now.
Born in 1996, you would have had broadband internet access from the age of preschool, and you would have been 9 years old when YouTube launched. You were five years old when the twin towers fell. You went to uni in 2014, so you would have been studying during the Brexit vote. For the privilege, you could be paying £9000 a year (£27k) in total for your course.
I'll let you figure out the rest of the story - graduating into a low growth, stagnant economy with sky high house prices and no chance of ever owning a home.
So it's ridiculous to lump "millennials" together as a group - as a term it's pretty useless.
You can do that exercise for baby boomers/X if you like too though DOB 1963 *COUGH*, 1965, 1979.
Admittedly, that is considerably less awful than most current Yougov polls for the Conservatives.
Frost’s MRP? It has swingback built into it, and zero tactical voting. Without the swingback the methodology showed about 100 Conservative seats, even then with no tactical voting. Hence Mogg bears Labour by 1%, with much more than 1% voting Lib Dem.
This MRP is based on very low Tory share, far lower than it will be on voting day, hence they built in swingback. There will be swingback, the details of this poll convinced me - of the group Lab to Con switchers, the majority trust the Tories more on the economy, so I say there’s your large group swinging back before voting day because Turkey’s don’t vote for Christmas.
That the poll only found 36% support for Labour, the firm are denying. It’s a different type of questionnaire. I don’t think Labour only having 4% swing for these results are being denied.
In my opinion, based on 1997, where outside the top 3 6% of votes went to other parties, and just about all current polls has that nearly 20%, the combined Lab+Con in 2024 could be very low. Just 10 to libdems, and 15 to ref, Grn and SNP means Con and Lab only have 75 to share. I don’t think Starmer is getting the same % of vote Boris got - in fact I think Labour sub 40% is a 50/50 value political bet to place today. Psephologically though, sub 40 doesn’t mean Labour can’t get a similar 80 seat majority.
What’s also a myth is Telegraph saying Labour don’t get a majority if Reform don’t stand, they clearly said all those votes have to go to the Tories, for Labour to only get 311 and Tories 265 seats. And just about everyone saying but they won’t get all those Reform votes. But they pretty much did in 2019, after the election proper started. Yet, that 311 to Labour and 265 seats for Tories I presume still has swingback built in and zero tactical voting.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
This is bang on in my view. As you say, wind back to early 2020 and our current situation was inconceivable.
In my view, what happens hangs on your 'secret strategic thinking' point. If he pulls something (even quite modest) out of the hat to make the country feel more positive and less poor, I think he'll be safe for a decade.
But if he doesn't change much, I agree with you.
Though its not just the leader. The team around him will come in with energy and ideas which may prove a welcome contrast to the dregs of a long Tory administration that currently seems bereft of either.
Admittedly, depending on your politics the ideas and energy might be a turn off, but my point is that even if Starmer is a mirror of Sunak, the government will probably feel quite different.
I remain hopeful that Starmer has a very well camouflaged rabbit hiding in a hat we haven't noticed yet, but freely admit that I don't have much evidence for this view.
I think the big thing is investment.
The Tories really don't seem to get this - in infrastructure, education or defence - and they have expanded the state to suite their client base, so confusing a form of social democracy with a desire for tax cuts at all costs, which is illogical and out of date.
Starmer needs to be investing £80-100bn a year (not £28bn) and in a mix of infrastructure, education, housing and defence with taxation, including some modest wealth taxes, if required to pay for it.
I've laid out a Tory approach to deliver this in the past, which is based on reigning in the triple lock, and bringing in some social insurance contributions for healthcare to fund it, but tbf their current voting coalition would probably totally collapse if they tried it.
Again, agree almost entirely. I'd add green infrastructure (with the caveat of the danger of trying to pick winners, it is clearly going to be a growth area. Encouraging more innovation along the lines of Octopus energy's use of smart meters to smooth demand curves would be sensible - we are now exporting this globally). I'd probably remove defence from your list; whilst vital for strategic reasons it doesn't really feel like investment in the same way education, housing, infrastructure does.
Thanks. Investment in defence is necessary to protect and secure everything else, including our economy and way of life.
We've got to move on from thinking we can just have it on the cheap, hiding under the skirts of the US, with our fingers in our ears.
Sadly, the world has changed.
The reliance on the US is not just military. What percentage of UK household and pension assets are directly held in the US? What percentage is indirectly reliant on US asset valuations and global hegemony?
Whilst things have been bad for a while now, there is certainly scope for them getting much worse, fairly quickly in the event of a Trump win.
The US pins up the whole West. If it goes, we go, and then it's everyone in the West for themselves, each of whom will very quickly make their peace with Russia and China and ask them to name their price.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
I don't think it's the pseudo-Christian culture as much as those with interests in oil and gas spending a lot of money to make people think a net zero world will be doom and gloom when, after the initial investment costs for renewables are put in, the upkeep and running costs for sustainable energy is much cheaper than oil and gas. It doesn't help that, under current law, the energy price is link to the dirtiest production method (so each unit is charged based on the cost of coal) so that renewable energy sees more profit (which was supposed to incentivise companies to go renewable to make more money). What it has done instead is force providers who could undercut the competition and therefore get more customers to charge the same and therefore not give consumers any incentive to go to those energy providers that do more heavily rely on renewable sources.
On Reform, I listened on R5 last night to an interview with Rupert Lowe, who is apparently RefUK's spokesperson on business and agriculture. Apart from his intensely irritating habit of starting every answer with "at the end of the day", he denied that the party was right wing. He then proceeded to suggest that man-made climate change was a myth, gave some hints of Covid and vaccine denial, suggested that the current government was rather left-wing, and generally gave every impression of being a very right-wing populist nationalist with some bonkers ideas somewhat lacking evidence. Although there's obviously a market for these ideas, it's fairly small. If this is anything to go by, I suspect Reform could fall apart under the spotlight of a GE campaign and have little impact.
Fun fact.
Rupert Lowe was Chairman/owner of Sunak's football team Southampton.
Isn't the manager of Southampton a member of the Green Party? Well done to them on not letting politics keep them permanently furious at one another.
He is but Lowe left years ago after ruining the club.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still
Millennial is often used as a synonym for young person. Whilst it was true once, it's not really now and will be increasingly wrong in the future. (Sauce myself, a 1981 baby)
Mortgage, (or whole house rental) & kids age. Gen Z is 'da yoof'.
Are you technically a Millennial if you were born in 1981? I know these things are fuzzy at the edges, but the definition of the start of the Millennial generation is pretty clear - hit 18 during or after 2000. Which you didn't. You're (late) Gen X.
Nah, Gen Xers had more fun in the 90s tbh.
I’m a Boomer and I had a ton of fun in the 1990s. Also in the 2010s
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
This is bang on in my view. As you say, wind back to early 2020 and our current situation was inconceivable.
In my view, what happens hangs on your 'secret strategic thinking' point. If he pulls something (even quite modest) out of the hat to make the country feel more positive and less poor, I think he'll be safe for a decade.
But if he doesn't change much, I agree with you.
Though its not just the leader. The team around him will come in with energy and ideas which may prove a welcome contrast to the dregs of a long Tory administration that currently seems bereft of either.
Admittedly, depending on your politics the ideas and energy might be a turn off, but my point is that even if Starmer is a mirror of Sunak, the government will probably feel quite different.
I remain hopeful that Starmer has a very well camouflaged rabbit hiding in a hat we haven't noticed yet, but freely admit that I don't have much evidence for this view.
I think the big thing is investment.
The Tories really don't seem to get this - in infrastructure, education or defence - and they have expanded the state to suite their client base, so confusing a form of social democracy with a desire for tax cuts at all costs, which is illogical and out of date.
Starmer needs to be investing £80-100bn a year (not £28bn) and in a mix of infrastructure, education, housing and defence with taxation, including some modest wealth taxes, if required to pay for it.
I've laid out a Tory approach to deliver this in the past, which is based on reigning in the triple lock, and bringing in some social insurance contributions for healthcare to fund it, but tbf their current voting coalition would probably totally collapse if they tried it.
Defence seems like a good investment bet at the moment. If we’re entering the fabled new post-Pax Americana multipolar world then countries are going to need kit.
Rather than target a % of GDP (which I sort of get in principle, as it matches your punch proportionately to what your economy can afford) I'd prefer to work out need. I'd say:
Army needs to go from 75k > 105 k so we can deploy one warfighting division permanently, plus two in an emergency for 3-6 months + HQ if needed, and maintain lighter ops.
Navy is probably short of 2-3 destroyers, several frigates, a sub or two, and lots of logistical support. Most importantly, sailors.
Air Force probably needs 3-4 extra squadrons.
And then you have all the new tech and kit required, plus base infrastructure, and stuff to deal with new threats for hypersonic missile defence and cyber warfare. You also need some redundancy in supplies.
Actually, add that up and you probably do need 3% of GDP on it.
The MoD and the forces need root and branch reform before they get another penny. If they get more money now then >50% will be wasted to zero (or net negative) effect.
There aren't enough people of the right calibre coming in and there are too many leaving. Until somebody in authority asks why this might be and come up with a plan to fix it all thoughts of fantasy flotillas is a counter-productive distraction.
What would you suggest?
Would you consider writing a piece on it?
I might. I will think about it.
If you're interested in this stuff I recommend Mark Esper's book. He was an innovative and effective Secretary of the Army and Defence Secretary before Trump foolishly fired him. He had a lot of very good and quite radical ideas. He was also very people focussed and made taking care of soldiers and their families one of the army's key priorities. That's the sort of thinking we need in my opinion.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
I was mulling something similar yesterday. There is a tendency (among British people? Europeans? Humans?) to think 'if only we can sacrifice enough or punish ourselves enough, we will be saved'. This was particularly evident during covid, but the climate change agenda follows the same pattern. And I was reflecting on similarities with medieval Christianity; and indeed on ancient religion, and wondering whether this viewpoint is hardwired into us culturally, or indeed as humans.
There is surprisingly little market for 'if we do this, we not only stop doing the bad thing but make life better for ourselves too'.
As reported last night, someone shot down a Russian A50 early warning aircraft, and damaged an IL-22. Both Ukrainians and !Russians! claiming credit...
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
Yes, the Starmer 2+ terms relies - I think - on the Conservatives not selecting someone electable for the GE after next. However, history suggests that's quite likely - both Lab and Con have tended to retreat into their comfort zone after a big defeat rather than listening to the electorate.
More interesting (but harder) question- if the Conservative Party decided to respond to a tonking by choosing a leader to please the electorate rather than the party membership, who do they go with?
There are different sorts of answers to this, because there are different flavours of right wing (unlike Corbyn, who was the full left wing package).
Both Cameron and Boris 'pleased the electorate' - but I'd suggest Boris did so more than Cameron. Cameron however fulfilled the very useful function of persuading those in high-influence positions not to hate the Tory party quite so much - so to the casual observer he appeared the more popular of the two.
The ultimate 'please the party not the electorate' was Liz Truss. While I think there was a kernel of something in her analysis, there was no evidence at all for an appetite for Trussonomics among the wider electorate. But I don't think they'll go back there. Where they might go is someone like Kemi Badenoch - I don't see her as particularly right wing (I really don't know exactly where she is economically but I don't get the impression that she's Trussite) - but she makes centrists uncomfortable. How the electorate feel about someone like her remains to be seen.
Alternatively, there is Penny, who my impression is is right of Kemi economically but doesn't inspire the same instant fury.
Or there may be a Tom Tugendhat affable centrist type figure but I don't know who that might be or whether the electorate would care if there was.
I don't know what the answer is (either what will happen or what should happen) - but my point is that the 'compromise with the electorate' argument is slightly more complex than it is for Labour.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
This is bang on in my view. As you say, wind back to early 2020 and our current situation was inconceivable.
In my view, what happens hangs on your 'secret strategic thinking' point. If he pulls something (even quite modest) out of the hat to make the country feel more positive and less poor, I think he'll be safe for a decade.
But if he doesn't change much, I agree with you.
Though its not just the leader. The team around him will come in with energy and ideas which may prove a welcome contrast to the dregs of a long Tory administration that currently seems bereft of either.
Admittedly, depending on your politics the ideas and energy might be a turn off, but my point is that even if Starmer is a mirror of Sunak, the government will probably feel quite different.
I remain hopeful that Starmer has a very well camouflaged rabbit hiding in a hat we haven't noticed yet, but freely admit that I don't have much evidence for this view.
I think the big thing is investment.
The Tories really don't seem to get this - in infrastructure, education or defence - and they have expanded the state to suite their client base, so confusing a form of social democracy with a desire for tax cuts at all costs, which is illogical and out of date.
Starmer needs to be investing £80-100bn a year (not £28bn) and in a mix of infrastructure, education, housing and defence with taxation, including some modest wealth taxes, if required to pay for it.
I've laid out a Tory approach to deliver this in the past, which is based on reigning in the triple lock, and bringing in some social insurance contributions for healthcare to fund it, but tbf their current voting coalition would probably totally collapse if they tried it.
Again, agree almost entirely. I'd add green infrastructure (with the caveat of the danger of trying to pick winners, it is clearly going to be a growth area. Encouraging more innovation along the lines of Octopus energy's use of smart meters to smooth demand curves would be sensible - we are now exporting this globally). I'd probably remove defence from your list; whilst vital for strategic reasons it doesn't really feel like investment in the same way education, housing, infrastructure does.
Thanks. Investment in defence is necessary to protect and secure everything else, including our economy and way of life.
We've got to move on from thinking we can just have it on the cheap, hiding under the skirts of the US, with our fingers in our ears.
Sadly, the world has changed.
The reliance on the US is not just military. What percentage of UK household and pension assets are directly held in the US? What percentage is indirectly reliant on US asset valuations and global hegemony?
Whilst things have been bad for a while now, there is certainly scope for them getting much worse, fairly quickly in the event of a Trump win.
The US pins up the whole West. If it goes, we go, and then it's everyone in the West for themselves, each of whom will very quickly make their peace with Russia and China and ask them to name their price.
That price will be very heavy.
Indeed, which is why I believe we need to build an alternate pillar to the US with our friends and allies in Europe. Maybe some sort of united states of Europe.
Admittedly, that is considerably less awful than most current Yougov polls for the Conservatives.
I don't quite know how we lost MPs like James Arbuthnot, William Hague, Sir George Young and Archie Norman and gained ones like Imran Khan, Peter Bone, Charlie Elphicke and Chris Pincher.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still
Millennial is often used as a synonym for young person. Whilst it was true once, it's not really now and will be increasingly wrong in the future. (Sauce myself, a 1981 baby)
Mortgage, (or whole house rental) & kids age. Gen Z is 'da yoof'.
Are you technically a Millennial if you were born in 1981? I know these things are fuzzy at the edges, but the definition of the start of the Millennial generation is pretty clear - hit 18 during or after 2000. Which you didn't. You're (late) Gen X.
1981 seems generally accepted as millenial. Some UK govts studies including 1980 too.
The standard definition of millennial is born 1981-1996. But it's also absurd to say that someone born in 1981 has more in common with someone born in 1996 than someone born in 1979.
Born in 1981, you probably grew up (as I did) in a home with a rotary dial phone, four TV channels, and if you were very lucky, rudimentary internet access via 56k modem by the time you were ready to leave home and go to uni (if you went).
At uni, you would have just had to start paying fees (introduced 1998, cheers Blair) but you would have paid £3000 in total for a 3 year course. You would have been old enough to drink when the twin towers fell (I remember exactly where I was when the second plane hit: the pub).
You would have graduated in the early 2000s, as the economy was picking up in the post dotcom crash. You probably found it relatively easy to get work, though you might have been laid off in 2008. Still, if you worked hard, you probably managed to buy a house / flat somewhere between 2006 and 2012, so your mortgage is half paid off by now.
Born in 1996, you would have had broadband internet access from the age of preschool, and you would have been 9 years old when YouTube launched. You were five years old when the twin towers fell. You went to uni in 2014, so you would have been studying during the Brexit vote. For the privilege, you could be paying £9000 a year (£27k) in total for your course.
I'll let you figure out the rest of the story - graduating into a low growth, stagnant economy with sky high house prices and no chance of ever owning a home.
So it's ridiculous to lump "millennials" together as a group - as a term it's pretty useless.
You can do that exercise for baby boomers/X if you like too though DOB 1963, 1965, 1979.
Yep, agree. It's why I think the whole "generational" thing is BS.
The millennial "divide" is the most acute though, because someone born in 1981 would have grown up without the greatest revolution of our times -the internet. I'm old enough to remember the pre-internet world, someone born in 1996 is not. Ditto housing. It was possible for me to get on the property ladder in the 2000s, when someone born in 1996 wouldn't have even gone through puberty yet.
I tend to divide people into "pre internet" and "post internet" generations. Having tech at an early age, five year olds with ipads, with access to insane amounts of knowledge (and BS), youtube etc, shapes your brain in a very different way from those of us who grew up with 4 tv channels, rotary phones and physical books.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
The biggest block of voters is anti-current Tories. That group will disperse during a Labour term just like 2019 leave non traditional Tories have dispersed during this parliament.
My estimates of winner of next GE bar one: Starmer 35% Farage 15% Others 50%.
I think voters recognise that it takes time to turn the ship of state around. At the next GE, the message “The Tories fucked this up and we need more time to fix it” may still play very well. Of course, it depends on what happens in Starmer’s first term — events, dear boy, and all that — but I think the predictions of Starmer struggling electorally come across more as wishful thinking.
That plays well against any Tory leader not called Farage or Boris. Fairly obviously I do not hope for Farage or the second coming of Bozo as PM. Nor do I want Trump as President but happy to bet on such occurences when the odds are favourable and these charlatans are underestimated.
Johnson and Farage are both very unpopular with a lot of the electorate. Johnson has too much baggage; I don’t believe he can ever make a Churchillian return. Farage is popular with a segment of the electorate, but that doesn’t mean he is popular with enough.
We shouldn’t underestimate populist charlatans, but don’t look to yesteryear’s populist charlatans. The populist charlatan to worry about will be someone we’ve not yet heard of.
7 Hague 29% (maybe possible if Cameron hadn't got involved first?) 11 Sunak 25% (getting replaced) 12 Heseltine 24% (far too old and a lefty woke liberal to the Tory members) 13 Mordaunt 24% (for the sword) 16 Major 22% (see Heseltine) 19 Stewart 22% (wants to serve in Starmers cabinet....not happening but now an ex-Tory) 23 Clarke 21% (see Heseltine) 24 Wallace 21% (multiple chances, declined) 25 Cameron 20% 26 May 20%
So Farage and Johnson have a far bigger base than anyone else on the right, yes of course they are unpopular too but the Tories will start the next cycle from a base lower than Farage or Johnsons personal ones, and the members like them. No-one else has any significant or sustained cut through.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
See also: insulation.
I'm not sure it's going to get us all the way to where we (or more likely, our children) need to be, but there is still a decent amount of really low-hanging "just don't be wasteful in silly shoddy ways" fruit to gather in terms of greenery.
(As of now, I'm super cosy in my electric snoodie and exporting energy to the grid.)
And whilst some of that is the strand of greenery that likes bodily mortification, it's also about pushback from the status quo, and one wonders what they're playing at.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
All of which are luxury items for the monied middle-classes, who can afford the capital cost of solar panels and electric cars.
To the rest of us, all we see is that monthly utility bill keep going up.
Even the BBC managed to do that. Not the guardian. Yet it does have details like this:
“When cases did eventually reach court, GMP left the young victims to be “harassed and intimidated by the men who had previously abused them”, sometimes at gunpoint.
GMP took no action in the case of a 15-year-old girl who gave birth to a child of her “pimp”.
One child told GMP that her abusers kept girls in cages and “made them bark like a dog or dress like a baby”,”
THEY KEPT THEM IN CAGES
The scale of this makes the post office scandal look like a minor street crime. Yet somehow I don’t see PB poring over the details for day after day after day
I've been listening to this story on r5L this morning as I drove back from doing chores, and Naga Munchetty has stressed the perpetrators' ethnicity fairly strongly (and IMV fairly).
On a related note, I'd like the names of the people who refused to cooperate with this review to be placed on front pages.
Note that despite “everyone knew”, no senior figures being suggested for even sanction, let alone prosecution.
That would require the police to investigate themselves, and we know how very, very long that can take.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
I was mulling something similar yesterday. There is a tendency (among British people? Europeans? Humans?) to think 'if only we can sacrifice enough or punish ourselves enough, we will be saved'. This was particularly evident during covid, but the climate change agenda follows the same pattern. And I was reflecting on similarities with medieval Christianity; and indeed on ancient religion, and wondering whether this viewpoint is hardwired into us culturally, or indeed as humans.
There is surprisingly little market for 'if we do this, we not only stop doing the bad thing but make life better for ourselves too'.
Hmm isn't that Biden/Musk's general pitch (Trump's a bit different...) ?
No ban on gas boilers post 2035 in the good ol' US of A.
I missed all the chat about date of next general election and heard Rishi about when the next likely date is.
THAT SAID.
With the Cons looking like they are going to get a shellacking to end all shellackings, why on earth wouldn't they wait until the last possible moment and go for 2025. At the margin things may get worse but as far as the current govt is concerned who cares. Losing a few more seats is neither here nor there if you are facing a huge defeat. Meanwhile Rishi is PM and is trying to build his legacy where duration is a key factor.
Rishi (1yr, 82 days) is currently nestled under the Duke of Grafton in 48th place. He can bump that up 10 places by waiting for another 375 days or so.
2025 next GE is currently 26s (bf) and I have had a modest stake to this end.
Tory 2019 voters are dying at a 4:1 ratio vs Labour voters. Thats about another 200k vote swing to Labour for waiting a full year.
What an idiotic post. According to this logic a 20yr old Labour voter will remain voting Labour until they die at 90yrs old. At some point that Lab voter (by your own logic) will become a Cons voter. So for every Cons voter that rolls off this mortal coil, a new one will emerge, blinking into the sunlight out of their cocoon of voting Lab.
You say "idiotic", but John Burn-Murdoch, who is by no means an idiot and almost certainly smarter than you or me, says this is broadly what is happening:
Similar patterns are evident in Britain, where millennials are more economically leftwing than Gen-Xers and boomers were at the same age, and Brexit has alienated a higher share of former Tory backers among this generation than any other. Even before Truss, two-thirds of millennials who had backed the Conservatives before the EU referendum were no longer planning to vote for the party again, and one in four said they now strongly disliked the Tories.
The data is clear that millennials are not simply going to age into conservatism. To reverse a cohort effect, you have to do something for that cohort. Home ownership continues to prove more elusive for millennials than for earlier generations at the same age in both countries. With houses increasingly difficult to afford, a good place to start would be to help more millennials get on to the housing ladder. Serious proposals for reforming two of the world’s most expensive childcare systems would be another.
I think they're turning but the national average baseline is simply 10 points off where it needs to be.
So imagine the Conservative black line moves shift down 10 points to the left and you're there.
Not sure I really understand your point. The "Conservative black line" is where it is because that is the average Conservative vote. If you shift the line down 10 points, that's a world in which the Conservatives are doing much worse in elections.
The point indicated by that graph is that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still) are not only less Conservative inclined than other generations were at that age, but are also less Conservative inclined than their own generation was at the age of about 20.
that Millennials hitting 40 (terrifying in itself that many Millennials are in their 40s but still
Millennial is often used as a synonym for young person. Whilst it was true once, it's not really now and will be increasingly wrong in the future. (Sauce myself, a 1981 baby)
Mortgage, (or whole house rental) & kids age. Gen Z is 'da yoof'.
Are you technically a Millennial if you were born in 1981? I know these things are fuzzy at the edges, but the definition of the start of the Millennial generation is pretty clear - hit 18 during or after 2000. Which you didn't. You're (late) Gen X.
1981 seems generally accepted as millenial. Some UK govts studies including 1980 too.
The standard definition of millennial is born 1981-1996. But it's also absurd to say that someone born in 1981 has more in common with someone born in 1996 than someone born in 1979.
Born in 1981, you probably grew up (as I did) in a home with a rotary dial phone, four TV channels, and if you were very lucky, rudimentary internet access via 56k modem by the time you were ready to leave home and go to uni (if you went).
At uni, you would have just had to start paying fees (introduced 1998, cheers Blair) but you would have paid £3000 in total for a 3 year course. You would have been old enough to drink when the twin towers fell (I remember exactly where I was when the second plane hit: the pub).
You would have graduated in the early 2000s, as the economy was picking up in the post dotcom crash. You probably found it relatively easy to get work, though you might have been laid off in 2008. Still, if you worked hard, you probably managed to buy a house / flat somewhere between 2006 and 2012, so your mortgage is half paid off by now.
Born in 1996, you would have had broadband internet access from the age of preschool, and you would have been 9 years old when YouTube launched. You were five years old when the twin towers fell. You went to uni in 2014, so you would have been studying during the Brexit vote. For the privilege, you could be paying £9000 a year (£27k) in total for your course.
I'll let you figure out the rest of the story - graduating into a low growth, stagnant economy with sky high house prices and no chance of ever owning a home.
So it's ridiculous to lump "millennials" together as a group - as a term it's pretty useless.
You can do that exercise for baby boomers/X if you like too though DOB 1963, 1965, 1979.
Yep, agree. It's why I think the whole "generational" thing is BS.
The millennial "divide" is the most acute though, because someone born in 1981 would have grown up without the greatest revolution of our times -the internet. I'm old enough to remember the pre-internet world, someone born in 1996 is not. Ditto housing. It was possible for me to get on the property ladder in the 2000s, when someone born in 1996 wouldn't have even gone through puberty yet.
I tend to divide people into "pre internet" and "post internet" generations. Having tech at an early age, five year olds with ipads, with access to insane amounts of knowledge (and BS), youtube etc, shapes your brain in a very different way from those of us who grew up with 4 tv channels, rotary phones and physical books.
The terminology in the literature is digital natives. Although even there, I think there’s an important difference between growing up with access to the Internet and growing up with access to the Internet on your phone.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
This is bang on in my view. As you say, wind back to early 2020 and our current situation was inconceivable.
In my view, what happens hangs on your 'secret strategic thinking' point. If he pulls something (even quite modest) out of the hat to make the country feel more positive and less poor, I think he'll be safe for a decade.
But if he doesn't change much, I agree with you.
Though its not just the leader. The team around him will come in with energy and ideas which may prove a welcome contrast to the dregs of a long Tory administration that currently seems bereft of either.
Admittedly, depending on your politics the ideas and energy might be a turn off, but my point is that even if Starmer is a mirror of Sunak, the government will probably feel quite different.
I remain hopeful that Starmer has a very well camouflaged rabbit hiding in a hat we haven't noticed yet, but freely admit that I don't have much evidence for this view.
I think the big thing is investment.
The Tories really don't seem to get this - in infrastructure, education or defence - and they have expanded the state to suite their client base, so confusing a form of social democracy with a desire for tax cuts at all costs, which is illogical and out of date.
Starmer needs to be investing £80-100bn a year (not £28bn) and in a mix of infrastructure, education, housing and defence with taxation, including some modest wealth taxes, if required to pay for it.
I've laid out a Tory approach to deliver this in the past, which is based on reigning in the triple lock, and bringing in some social insurance contributions for healthcare to fund it, but tbf their current voting coalition would probably totally collapse if they tried it.
Again, agree almost entirely. I'd add green infrastructure (with the caveat of the danger of trying to pick winners, it is clearly going to be a growth area. Encouraging more innovation along the lines of Octopus energy's use of smart meters to smooth demand curves would be sensible - we are now exporting this globally). I'd probably remove defence from your list; whilst vital for strategic reasons it doesn't really feel like investment in the same way education, housing, infrastructure does.
Thanks. Investment in defence is necessary to protect and secure everything else, including our economy and way of life.
We've got to move on from thinking we can just have it on the cheap, hiding under the skirts of the US, with our fingers in our ears.
Sadly, the world has changed.
The reliance on the US is not just military. What percentage of UK household and pension assets are directly held in the US? What percentage is indirectly reliant on US asset valuations and global hegemony?
Whilst things have been bad for a while now, there is certainly scope for them getting much worse, fairly quickly in the event of a Trump win.
The US pins up the whole West. If it goes, we go, and then it's everyone in the West for themselves, each of whom will very quickly make their peace with Russia and China and ask them to name their price.
That price will be very heavy.
Indeed, which is why I believe we need to build an alternate pillar to the US with our friends and allies in Europe. Maybe some sort of united states of Europe.
No, we need a much stronger Western defensive alliance where everyone pulls their weight - not a political union, which is unnecessary.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
All of which are luxury items for the monied middle-classes, who can afford the capital cost of solar panels and electric cars.
To the rest of us, all we see is that monthly utility bill keep going up.
If the government offered you free solar panels to retrofit would you take them?
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
I was mulling something similar yesterday. There is a tendency (among British people? Europeans? Humans?) to think 'if only we can sacrifice enough or punish ourselves enough, we will be saved'. This was particularly evident during covid, but the climate change agenda follows the same pattern. And I was reflecting on similarities with medieval Christianity; and indeed on ancient religion, and wondering whether this viewpoint is hardwired into us culturally, or indeed as humans.
There is surprisingly little market for 'if we do this, we not only stop doing the bad thing but make life better for ourselves too'.
I think it's deeply embedded in our culture and psychology.
I don't agree with this lazy assumption that this means SKS is guaranteed "at least" a decade in office; the same was being said about Boris in early 2020 and look what's happened/happening to Jacinda, Biden, Scholz and Hollande, and even Albanese. Left/centre-left governments can go off the boil in the West at the moment quickly.
I'd say Starmer has between 18-36 months before he gets into trouble. I've seen no evidence of this secret strategic thinking to solve all our problems. I have seen him stay pretty quiet and react through triangulation to where public opinion is moving, with a bit of quiet management competence behind it. The most likely way he performs in office is to deliver just that which isnt that different to Rishi.
The only thing that could save him clearly for a second term is if the Conservatives completely and totally self-destruct in opposition, which they are absolutely capable of doing.
Yes, the Starmer 2+ terms relies - I think - on the Conservatives not selecting someone electable for the GE after next. However, history suggests that's quite likely - both Lab and Con have tended to retreat into their comfort zone after a big defeat rather than listening to the electorate.
More interesting (but harder) question- if the Conservative Party decided to respond to a tonking by choosing a leader to please the electorate rather than the party membership, who do they go with?
Probably do what the FA did when unable to find anyone they liked and go for an overseas signing? Maybe Ulf Kristersson in a few years
ETA: More seriously, they probably need time. Time to shuffle off everyone with a high(ish) profile from the past 13 years and present as a new offering. I don't think the person I could vote Con under has been in cabinet at least since Johnson took the helm - there may be exceptions that I forget.
Comments
He is going to stop being an MP if he stays Tory. And will have little to offer GBeebies afterwards. But if he is a FUKker, that's different. And you never know, he could attract just enough Labour voters to win.
A very widely held sentiment from aged voters is that Millenials/Gen Z are a bunch of feckless woke slackers. Despite the catastrophic long-term effect on their electoral prospects, the graphs posted above demonstrate that an age based campaign from Tories could work if they successfully inserted a wedge around age 50.
"NEW: we don’t reflect enough on how severe the housing crisis is, and how it has completely broken the promise society made to young adults.
The situation is especially severe in the UK, where the last time house prices were this unaffordable was in ... 1876."
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1746506285254603067?t=SDBdDfKZ10IMxBHTNdJqRg&s=19
Some great graphs on follow up posts in the thread.
My feeling is that if you really want to create a big change you have to start talking about it early. It takes a while for people to be convinced, and to end up thinking that it was obvious and all their idea in the first place. If Starmer does enter Number 10 with a big plan, but doesn't talk about it beforehand, I think he's going to struggle to implement it.
https://news.sky.com/story/children-left-at-mercy-of-rochdale-grooming-gangs-and-dozens-of-men-still-pose-potential-risk-report-13048713
https://www.schroders.com/en/global/individual/insights/what-174-years-of-data-tell-us-about-house-price-affordability-in-the-uk/
Houses built before 1850 were significantly larger than those built after. Prior to 1850, the average house in England and Wales had a plot size of 913 square metres but houses built in the next 50 years had an average plot size of only 268 square metres*
Of course the trade off was that much greater affordability came with the construction of housing post 1900 (See Langold near me for a town constructed entirely in the 1930s).
But now we've got both the small houses and the unaffordability has returned.
* That's not going to start magically increasing in the Carolean era...
- Scotland's population is set to remain steady (or even decline) over the next 50 years, and even then only sustained by immigration. Why is there a supply issue in this scenario?
- What impact has divorce rates had on the number of homes needed for the same population?
- Is the number of people in their 20s living alone also contributing to this?
- The rise of STL and BTL landlords
- Is this all explained by geographical inequality? Edinburgh prices are extraordinary, but Glasgow...
Thatcherism we all remember only really started after the 1983 election. Before that her mission was to stop the ship sinking any further after the disasters of the 1970s Health / Wilson / Callaghan governments.
Clearly DYOR and only bet what you can afford to (or are happy to) lose, but you will struggle to get better interest rates than that right now!
About the only thing you could spend heavily on with relatively low risk, and a decent near term improvement in capability, is extra munitions for existing systems.
(Which we should do.)
Take Casino's investment plan upthread. If Labour sets out a manifesto pledge to start this (which they are already talking about with housing) and links this back to their 'mission' to grow the economy, you could argue that investing more and bigger in education and infrastructure in the middle of a first term wouldn't be talking about something new, but rather expanding an ambition as the economy allows.
I could see a programme like this working for them over a decade or so, and isn't incompatible with their messaging thus far. But I am definitely hopecasting.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/01/15/ukraine-russia-war-live-spy-plane-shot-down-latest-updates/
What are the characteristics of the areas of the country where this is not a major issue because social housing exists and house prices are manageable for most of those who want to buy. (There are some).
What is the effect of the ever lengthening education/training period before starting work for ever increasing numbers of people.
What are the effects of the assumption that the typical family unit consists of two not one earner.
Why does Londoncentricity continue to the extent it does when the great majority of people from less expensive areas would not even think of being able to live there on financial grounds.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/15/police-took-aborted-foetus-without-telling-rochdale-grooming-victim-review-finds
Even the BBC managed to do that. Not the guardian. Yet it does have details like this:
“When cases did eventually reach court, GMP left the young victims to be “harassed and intimidated by the men who had previously abused them”, sometimes at gunpoint.
GMP took no action in the case of a 15-year-old girl who gave birth to a child of her “pimp”.
One child told GMP that her abusers kept girls in cages and “made them bark like a dog or dress like a baby”,”
THEY KEPT THEM IN CAGES
The scale of this makes the post office scandal look like a minor street crime. Yet somehow I don’t see PB poring over the details for day after day after day
Housing for Edinburgh needs to be in the commutable zone.
So easy to have a shortage of housing in Edinburgh and not in quite nearby bits of Scotland.
Edinburgh’s population is increasing noticeably, as well, IIRC. When you combine that with increasing popularity as a tourist destination and a low rate (relatively) of construction of new properties….
Divorce rates rose up in the 80s/90s but it plateaued and it's been stable/falling for some time now?
"Is the number of people in their 20s living alone also contributing to this?"
This might be mixing up cause and effect: the rise in people living on their own in small flats is because they can't buy houses as couples
"The rise of STL and BTL landlords"
Yes, but didn't the Osborne reforms kneecap the BTL market?
I think all your points were correct (apart from the lonely 20s) in around 2010/5, but not necessarily in 2024.
I agree that the edges are very fuzzy. There is no reason to expect an individual born in 1945 to be less similar to someone born in 1943 than they are to someone born in 1966 - quite the reverse.
There is some logic to the broad categories, though. For example, Gen X people were born in an era where the birth rate was very low, which has some advantages and some disadvantages for those within it. In a broad sense, cultural reference points for the different generations vary quite a lot and so on.
You don't need some kind of magic cut-off point in order for it to mean something.
Further examples of disproportion: The war in Sudan - much worse than Gaza etc. The refugee crisis in Chad (where?). The general election in Congo. The Rohinga. Islamism in Mali....
South of Edinburgh is a sea of scaffolding and white render.
On a related note, I'd like the names of the people who refused to cooperate with this review to be placed on front pages.
https://oxfordclarion.uk/the-oxford-clarion-general-election-preview/
So I doubt he'd defect this side of an election. All bets are off if he does indeed lose.
For example, they say they are in favour of strengthening collective bargaining rights and unions, higher pensions and benefits, more investment in education and infrastructure, loosening the debt brake, taxing wealth.
Against more immigration, against phasing out fossil fuels.
But their foreign policy positions (stop supplying weapons to Ukraine, end sanctions on Russia) are only shared with the AfD, who BSW have already ruled out working with. So other parties will keep their distance. Even more so than from the Left, who are currently in coalition in 3 state governments (with SPD and Greens - Bremen and Thuringia, or just SPD - MeckPomm).
1. The police actively tried to silence the first whistleblowers with threats of prosecution etc. That IS reminiscent of the post office scandal
2. According to one of the whistleblowers - Maggie Oliver - this systemised abuse (with the same racial dynamic) is still happening now in multiple towns
I mean: WTF
I can actually empathise with those who would simply rather not think about it. I do the same with Gaza. It’s so grim and bleak you avert the gaze. Plus of course for a lot of people it raises deeply uncomfortable issues that might “be exploited by the far right” and that is an understandable fear
But. Jeez. The details
Looks like it last happened in 1994 - a non explicit confidence motion having a de facto jure confidence effect.
Sunak will be too scared of his back benchers.
Born in 1981, you probably grew up (as I did) in a home with a rotary dial phone, four TV channels, and if you were very lucky, rudimentary internet access via 56k modem by the time you were ready to leave home and go to uni (if you went).
At uni, you would have just had to start paying fees (introduced 1998, cheers Blair) but you would have paid £3000 in total for a 3 year course. You would have been old enough to drink when the twin towers fell (I remember exactly where I was when the second plane hit: the pub).
You would have graduated in the early 2000s, as the economy was picking up in the post dotcom crash. You probably found it relatively easy to get work, though you might have been laid off in 2008. Still, if you worked hard, you probably managed to buy a house / flat somewhere between 2006 and 2012, so your mortgage is half paid off by now.
Born in 1996, you would have had broadband internet access from the age of preschool, and you would have been 9 years old when YouTube launched. You were five years old when the twin towers fell. You went to uni in 2014, so you would have been studying during the Brexit vote. For the privilege, you could be paying £9000 a year (£27k) in total for your course.
I'll let you figure out the rest of the story - graduating into a low growth, stagnant economy with sky high house prices and no chance of ever owning a home.
So it's ridiculous to lump "millennials" together as a group - as a term it's pretty useless.
Although there's obviously a market for these ideas, it's fairly small. If this is anything to go by, I suspect Reform could fall apart under the spotlight of a GE campaign and have little impact.
For the millennials , everyone gets a certificate just for taking part.
Rupert Lowe was Chairman/owner of Sunak's football team Southampton.
And if it is - as the article says - what will that do to us? And how will we react to the revelation that - allegedly - we have been lied to for decades?
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/jan/14/what-happens-if-we-have-been-visited-by-aliens-lied-to-ufos-uaps-grusch-congress
Are we on the edge of Disclosure or has the guardian simply joined the weird group madness?
Sagiv Jehezkel was detained by police after match for gesture the Turkish football federation said 'disturbed the conscience of the public'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/01/15/israeli-footballer-charged-turkey-hatred-inciting-hostages/
Intuitively, there have to be wins from Just Not Being Dumb- any thoughts on what they are?
(And as for the Starmer is Boring thing, that might work if he can be the calm centre everything else revolves around. Major did it when he was sucessful. Be Kenneth Horne and let the others be Kenneth Williams and Hugh Paddick.)
Would you consider writing a piece on it?
Another bewildering detail. The cops are normally quite keen on slam dunk rape cases with a guaranteed conviction at the end. It makes them look good statistically and it pleases several important lobbies
Well, this is about as slam dunk as it gets. Even if the victim refuses to give evidence (dunno if that happened) you have inarguable medical and genetic evidence of rape
What was going on in Rochdale? And how come the coppers involved aren’t being dragged over the coals? Their identity cannot be a secret
Whilst things have been bad for a while now, there is certainly scope for them getting much worse, fairly quickly in the event of a Trump win.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
The girl was arrested for being drunk and disorderly, IIRC.
We shouldn’t underestimate populist charlatans, but don’t look to yesteryear’s populist charlatans. The populist charlatan to worry about will be someone we’ve not yet heard of.
This MRP is based on very low Tory share, far lower than it will be on voting day, hence they built in swingback. There will be swingback, the details of this poll convinced me - of the group Lab to Con switchers, the majority trust the Tories more on the economy, so I say there’s your large group swinging back before voting day because Turkey’s don’t vote for Christmas.
That the poll only found 36% support for Labour, the firm are denying. It’s a different type of questionnaire. I don’t think Labour only having 4% swing for these results are being denied.
In my opinion, based on 1997, where outside the top 3 6% of votes went to other parties, and just about all current polls has that nearly 20%, the combined Lab+Con in 2024 could be very low. Just 10 to libdems, and 15 to ref, Grn and SNP means Con and Lab only have 75 to share. I don’t think Starmer is getting the same % of vote Boris got - in fact I think Labour sub 40% is a 50/50 value political bet to place today. Psephologically though, sub 40 doesn’t mean Labour can’t get a similar 80 seat majority.
What’s also a myth is Telegraph saying Labour don’t get a majority if Reform don’t stand, they clearly said all those votes have to go to the Tories, for Labour to only get 311 and Tories 265 seats. And just about everyone saying but they won’t get all those Reform votes. But they pretty much did in 2019, after the election proper started. Yet, that 311 to Labour and 265 seats for Tories I presume still has swingback built in and zero tactical voting.
That price will be very heavy.
If you're interested in this stuff I recommend Mark Esper's book. He was an innovative and effective Secretary of the Army and Defence Secretary before Trump foolishly fired him. He had a lot of very good and quite radical ideas. He was also very people focussed and made taking care of soldiers and their families one of the army's key priorities. That's the sort of thinking we need in my opinion.
There is surprisingly little market for 'if we do this, we not only stop doing the bad thing but make life better for ourselves too'.
If this is the correct image, then the IL-22 that managed to land is doing a good impression of Swiss cheese.
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1746872033185563018
The millennial "divide" is the most acute though, because someone born in 1981 would have grown up without the greatest revolution of our times -the internet. I'm old enough to remember the pre-internet world, someone born in 1996 is not. Ditto housing. It was possible for me to get on the property ladder in the 2000s, when someone born in 1996 wouldn't have even gone through puberty yet.
I tend to divide people into "pre internet" and "post internet" generations. Having tech at an early age, five year olds with ipads, with access to insane amounts of knowledge (and BS), youtube etc, shapes your brain in a very different way from those of us who grew up with 4 tv channels, rotary phones and physical books.
1 Blunkett 32% (not sure why?)
2 Starmer 30%
3 Burnham 29%
4 Farage 29%
5 Johnson 29%
Next most popular from the right
7 Hague 29% (maybe possible if Cameron hadn't got involved first?)
11 Sunak 25% (getting replaced)
12 Heseltine 24% (far too old and a lefty woke liberal to the Tory members)
13 Mordaunt 24% (for the sword)
16 Major 22% (see Heseltine)
19 Stewart 22% (wants to serve in Starmers cabinet....not happening but now an ex-Tory)
23 Clarke 21% (see Heseltine)
24 Wallace 21% (multiple chances, declined)
25 Cameron 20%
26 May 20%
So Farage and Johnson have a far bigger base than anyone else on the right, yes of course they are unpopular too but the Tories will start the next cycle from a base lower than Farage or Johnsons personal ones, and the members like them. No-one else has any significant or sustained cut through.
I'm not sure it's going to get us all the way to where we (or more likely, our children) need to be, but there is still a decent amount of really low-hanging "just don't be wasteful in silly shoddy ways" fruit to gather in terms of greenery.
(As of now, I'm super cosy in my electric snoodie and exporting energy to the grid.)
And whilst some of that is the strand of greenery that likes bodily mortification, it's also about pushback from the status quo, and one wonders what they're playing at.
To the rest of us, all we see is that monthly utility bill keep going up.
No ban on gas boilers post 2035 in the good ol' US of A.
ETA: More seriously, they probably need time. Time to shuffle off everyone with a high(ish) profile from the past 13 years and present as a new offering. I don't think the person I could vote Con under has been in cabinet at least since Johnson took the helm - there may be exceptions that I forget.