I am of course claiming England’s victory. I confidently forecast the test was lost when India got to 300/5 in the first innings. They simply couldn’t have done it without me.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
The idea this government is 'reactionary' on social issues is absurd. Gay marriage is legal, there are no efforts to restrict abortion, no efforts to restore the death penalty, burglaries are often ignored, even Trans can change sex as they wish. Beyond Brexit and sending some migrants to Rwanda there is nothing socially conservative about this government, even immigration has risen overall since 2010
For the life of me I don't understand what this woke thing is about. Why the right think they can make political capital out of it just shows how ideologically bankrupt they have become.
As far as I can see 99% of the population think that people have to compete competitively in the gender they were born into, and 99% of the population don't really agree with giving young children non reversible gender altering therapies. But if you do have the odd under 18 who is so unhappy with their gender that they are suicidal as I have encountered, then this decision should be made with a Health Professional, Parent and Child and is no one elses business.
I cannot for the life see what is the problem in gender neutral cubicles toilets where you might wash your hands in a shared use sink. Hopefully, it will shame more fellas into washing their hands afterwards. Grosses me out with men using a public loo and then leaving without washing their hands- especially if there is a knob or door handle. Years ago I was in Upstate New York and the public loos didn't have doors. I suffered the most horrendous constipation.
And, probably my most controversial opinion- I cannot see the problem in Trans being able to have some say on which gendered prison they go to. Again, subject to the prison authorities and a medical opinion. I've been in a lot of prisons over the years with work, including women's prisons where the person would be much safer in a gender prison they felt more aligned to. But considering the current state of our prisons, drugs, overcrowding, horrendous bullying and internal (terrible) offending.,..this specific issue is probably about a thousand down the list in terms of gravity.
And yet Rosie Duffield is effectively persona no grata in the Labour party for.......... what exactly?
Woke is not really a useful term. It's primarily become used by people who don't like it. That to me suggests we ought to avoid it. Matthew Syed puts his finger on something very important, the ridiculous denigration of the west that seems to permeate so much nowadays and we get Nigel B's slippery response. Of course no individual can define objective reality. The question is whether we can be bothered to try. Hundreds of years of empiricism, reason and the search for knowledge impacting academic disciplines now all being infected with obscure theories from the humanities and politicised by Gramscian types who want to march through the institutions. All dismissed by fashionable bourgeois types who think they are educated because they reflexively oppose the Tories/right wing whatever. Yet they only demonstrate their ignorance of what is happening.
Point of order. Rosie Duffield isn't persona non grata in the Labour Party. She has been reselected to fight her Canterbury seat.
So welcome she is often the recipient of vexatious complaints by opponents in the party.
Nevertheless, my point was that her local CLP, who presumably know her best, reselected her as their candidate.
She's persona non grata in certain groups within the Labour Party, and a hero to other ones.
And of course, twas ever thus. Different bits of the Labour Party have been tearing chunks out of other ones since the party was founded.
What is unusual about the 'gender wars' is that it cuts across the usual factions, in that you have left-wing feminists uniting with the practical right, and certain kinds of #BeKind moderate progressives uniting with the far left.
It’s also something on which the Tories, with the exception of Penny Mourdaunt, are united.
Lab and Lib are going to tear themselves apart over gender and identity politics during the election campaign, it might the the one small chance that Sunak has to avoid a whitewash.
No they aren't.
Starmer runs a tight, disciplined ship and will not say anything controversial on the subject.
Tories are grasping at the thinnest of straws with this one. All they do is alienate the young even more with their divisive culture wars. This isn't America or France.
'The Tories and their divisive culture wars.'
You don't think the people attacking Rosie Duffield are culture warriors?
Yes they are too.
There are always bonkers activists in all parties, but in the Tory Party stoking Culture War comes straight front from the front bench and stirring up hate against minorities is part of their election plan.
I know German speaking Italy well. Been several times
It’s a marvellous part of the world. Germany efficiency with Italian charm and mainly Italian and excellent food. Good wine. Exquisite Dolomite landscapes. Charming towns and cities - Bolzano etc
Go!
Skiing the Dolomites was my favourite. Did it many times. The Sella Ronda is a vast and lovely ski route, the towns and villages are lovely and the views magnificent.
Seeing Oompah bands and lederhosen in Italy though is a bit disconcerting.
I enjoy the weird clash
The Dolomites are right up there as one of the most majestic landscapes in the world. You can kind of understand why Austria and Italy fought so bitterly over them
The beauty is unreal. Soaring icebound peaks over ravishing green meadows with fairy tale castles and winsome villages everywhere
They are also culturally fascinating. Eg there’s a kind of primitive German - cimbrian? I’ll have to check - spoken by a few hundred people in maybe two villages on the Italian side
It is said to be like 12th century German. I actually heard some people speak it! Really odd - sounded like they were halfway to singing
You ever been to the Tatras? There's a weird Polish serial killery thing on Netflix called Forst, lots of sex and gross violence with some historical Nazi atrocities thrown in so you might like it, but in any case the spectacular views of aforementioned Tatras are the best thing about it. Might even pencil in a visit in my would like to but probably never will bucket list.
Looks like the Black Country Derby might be abandoned due to crowd trouble. Long time since we’ve seen scenes like this in football. Segregation compromised it appears.
For the life of me I don't understand what this woke thing is about. Why the right think they can make political capital out of it just shows how ideologically bankrupt they have become.
As far as I can see 99% of the population think that people have to compete competitively in the gender they were born into, and 99% of the population don't really agree with giving young children non reversible gender altering therapies. But if you do have the odd under 18 who is so unhappy with their gender that they are suicidal as I have encountered, then this decision should be made with a Health Professional, Parent and Child and is no one elses business.
I cannot for the life see what is the problem in gender neutral cubicles toilets where you might wash your hands in a shared use sink. Hopefully, it will shame more fellas into washing their hands afterwards. Grosses me out with men using a public loo and then leaving without washing their hands- especially if there is a knob or door handle. Years ago I was in Upstate New York and the public loos didn't have doors. I suffered the most horrendous constipation.
And, probably my most controversial opinion- I cannot see the problem in Trans being able to have some say on which gendered prison they go to. Again, subject to the prison authorities and a medical opinion. I've been in a lot of prisons over the years with work, including women's prisons where the person would be much safer in a gender prison they felt more aligned to. But considering the current state of our prisons, drugs, overcrowding, horrendous bullying and internal (terrible) offending.,..this specific issue is probably about a thousand down the list in terms of gravity.
And yet Rosie Duffield is effectively persona no grata in the Labour party for.......... what exactly?
Woke is not really a useful term. It's primarily become used by people who don't like it. That to me suggests we ought to avoid it. Matthew Syed puts his finger on something very important, the ridiculous denigration of the west that seems to permeate so much nowadays and we get Nigel B's slippery response. Of course no individual can define objective reality. The question is whether we can be bothered to try. Hundreds of years of empiricism, reason and the search for knowledge impacting academic disciplines now all being infected with obscure theories from the humanities and politicised by Gramscian types who want to march through the institutions. All dismissed by fashionable bourgeois types who think they are educated because they reflexively oppose the Tories/right wing whatever. Yet they only demonstrate their ignorance of what is happening.
Point of order. Rosie Duffield isn't persona non grata in the Labour Party. She has been reselected to fight her Canterbury seat.
So welcome she is often the recipient of vexatious complaints by opponents in the party.
Nevertheless, my point was that her local CLP, who presumably know her best, reselected her as their candidate.
She's persona non grata in certain groups within the Labour Party, and a hero to other ones.
And of course, twas ever thus. Different bits of the Labour Party have been tearing chunks out of other ones since the party was founded.
What is unusual about the 'gender wars' is that it cuts across the usual factions, in that you have left-wing feminists uniting with the practical right, and certain kinds of #BeKind moderate progressives uniting with the far left.
It’s also something on which the Tories, with the exception of Penny Mourdaunt, are united.
Lab and Lib are going to tear themselves apart over gender and identity politics during the election campaign, it might the the one small chance that Sunak has to avoid a whitewash.
No they aren't.
Starmer runs a tight, disciplined ship and will not say anything controversial on the subject.
Tories are grasping at the thinnest of straws with this one. All they do is alienate the young even more with their divisive culture wars. This isn't America or France.
'The Tories and their divisive culture wars.'
You don't think the people attacking Rosie Duffield are culture warriors?
Yes they are too.
There are always bonkers activists in all parties, but in the Tory Party stoking Culture War comes straight front from the front bench and stirring up hate against minorities is part of their election plan.
You are a divisive culture warrior, I am only asking common sense questions, as is our wonderful common sense czar.
If polls show a Unionist majority at Holyrood and Labour winning most seats in Scotland again, then polls on Scottish independence become completely irrelevant.
The Scottish government would then not even have a majority for indyref2 at Holyrood for Westminster to ignore. You could have 99% for independence in polls but without an SNP or SNP and Green pro independence majority at Holyrood and an SNP majority of Scottish MPs, who cares?
I hesitate to 'crowbar in' something about Scottish indy on a thread about cricket, but can you list the times that you accepted that SNP having most Scottish seats, polls showing roughly half of the electorate supported indy and an indy majority at Holyrood were relevant?
Westminster is supreme yes, as the SC confirmed, the issue was relevant but Westminster had the final say.
No SNP majority anywhere and the issue becomes irrelevant with Westminster still having the final say
When quite consistently, 45% of Scots say they want out, that is far from being irrelevant. It doesn't take much to turn that number into a majority.
Yes it is irrelevant, indeed 99% of Scots for independence would be irrelevant unless the SNP or SNP and Greens had a majority at Holyrood and there was an SNP majority of Scottish MPs
If 99% of Scots wanted independence, they would get it. If 50% + of Scots want independence, consistently, they will get it, because there is no appetite to hold Scotland in the Union at gunpoint.
No they would not. As the UK Supreme Court confirmed Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union.
So Westminster could block it and if the SNP don't have a majority of Scottish MPs they couldn't even try and declare UDI and if the SNP don't even have a majority alone or with the Greens at Holyrood they couldn't even ask Westminster for an indyref2
You are mixing up “could” and “would”.
If 99% of Scots wanted independence, Westminster would grant it. I’d say that would hold down to 60%+ (slightly higher than @Sean_F ).
They wouldn’t *have* to. They *could* seek to hold Scotland against the settled will of the inhabitants. But they *would not* do that
If there was a Unionist majority at Westminster and Holyrood no Westminster would not grant independence whatever polls said on it.
Albeit the chances of there being no SNP majority in Scotland if independence support was at 99% is near zero but it does show the point is not what polls say if that is not backed up by nationalist majorities at Holyrood and amongst Scottish MPs
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Yet most 39-50 year olds voted Tory in 2019 so they can vote Tory even now if they think that the best option.
The Tories don't need under 40s to win, though getting some more 25-40 year olds on the housing ladder would help
I know German speaking Italy well. Been several times
It’s a marvellous part of the world. Germany efficiency with Italian charm and mainly Italian and excellent food. Good wine. Exquisite Dolomite landscapes. Charming towns and cities - Bolzano etc
Go!
Skiing the Dolomites was my favourite. Did it many times. The Sella Ronda is a vast and lovely ski route, the towns and villages are lovely and the views magnificent.
Seeing Oompah bands and lederhosen in Italy though is a bit disconcerting.
I enjoy the weird clash
The Dolomites are right up there as one of the most majestic landscapes in the world. You can kind of understand why Austria and Italy fought so bitterly over them
The beauty is unreal. Soaring icebound peaks over ravishing green meadows with fairy tale castles and winsome villages everywhere
They are also culturally fascinating. Eg there’s a kind of primitive German - cimbrian? I’ll have to check - spoken by a few hundred people in maybe two villages on the Italian side
It is said to be like 12th century German. I actually heard some people speak it! Really odd - sounded like they were halfway to singing
You ever been to the Tatras? There's a weird Polish serial killery thing on Netflix called Forst, lots of sex and gross violence with some historical Nazi atrocities thrown in so you might like it, but in any case the spectacular views of aforementioned Tatras are the best thing about it. Might even pencil in a visit in my would like to but probably never will bucket list.
Never been but have heard good things. I believe the great Karol Wojtyla - Pope John Paul 2 - loved to hike there and found much spiritual inspiration. Which is some recommendation
Looks like the Black Country Derby might be abandoned due to crowd trouble. Long time since we’ve seen scenes like this in football. Segregation compromised it appears.
Announcement the game won't be resumed until the fans sit back down. No incentive there for the Baggies to sit down as they are losing.
Need to announce both teams will be barred from all cup competitions for five years - unless the fans sit down.
Looks like the Black Country Derby might be abandoned due to crowd trouble. Long time since we’ve seen scenes like this in football. Segregation compromised it appears.
Announcement the game won't be resumed until the fans sit back down. No incentive there for the Baggies to sit down as they are losing.
Need to announce both teams will be barred from all cup competitions for five years - unless the fans sit down.
Nah, just abandon the game now, kick them out of the cup and ban them for a couple of years. Don't plead with the fuckers, just bin it.
The Houthis have announced that Chinese and Russian vessels will be granted safe passage through the Red Sea. However US and European ships on their way to or from Israel will continue to be targeted.
Looks like the Black Country Derby might be abandoned due to crowd trouble. Long time since we’ve seen scenes like this in football. Segregation compromised it appears.
Announcement the game won't be resumed until the fans sit back down. No incentive there for the Baggies to sit down as they are losing.
Need to announce both teams will be barred from all cup competitions for five years - unless the fans sit down.
Nah, just abandon the game now, kick them out of the cup and ban them for a couple of years. Don't plead with the fuckers, just bin it.
Can we deduct each 30 points too, a Forest fan writes....
Today’s Sunday Rawnsley, fresh in from garden sunshine:
Having spent the last three years being much too nonchalant about the threat of him recapturing the White House, British politicians and their counterparts elsewhere in Europe can no longer deny to themselves that a Trump second coming is terrifyingly possible.
The Maga branch of the Tory party, whose precinct captains are Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, has been waving flags for Trump. The prime minister has maintained a diplomatic silence. This suggests he grasps that his party’s already dismal prospects won’t be enhanced by hugging close to a figure who is toxic to the great majority of British voters. Sir Keir Starmer will be wary of saying anything to provoke Trump, but in the past he hasn’t disguised his preference for a Biden victory, and I am told the Labour leader is frustrated that he has yet to be invited to call on the White House.
People close to the prime minister and within the Labour leader’s circle claim they would find a way to “handle” Trump and “make it work”. That is stupendously naive and conceited. It sounds like someone who has only ever had a pet rabbit telling you they know how to control an American bully XL.
The destruction of the trans-Atlantic bridge would further underline the strategic folly of Brexit. European leaders would look supremely foolish for failing to fulfil the pledges they made to improve military capabilities in the wake of Russia’s brutal invasion. There would be a big incentive on both sides to improve UK-EU relations and hurry efforts to agree a pan-European security pact. Even if the worst doesn’t happen this time, there’s no saying that America won’t elect a Trump-like figure in the future. It is beyond time that Europe stopped leaving so much of the responsibility for its defence to America and devoted the necessary resources to ensuring the security of its own continent.
And if the worst does happen, if he recaptures the White House, I’d be very wary of anyone who tells you not to lose too much sleep over it. We should be under no illusions that the so-called “special relationship” will protect Britain from the Trump tempest. He will be a clear and present danger to the UK’s vital interests in a way no previous US president has ever been.
For the life of me I don't understand what this woke thing is about. Why the right think they can make political capital out of it just shows how ideologically bankrupt they have become.
As far as I can see 99% of the population think that people have to compete competitively in the gender they were born into, and 99% of the population don't really agree with giving young children non reversible gender altering therapies. But if you do have the odd under 18 who is so unhappy with their gender that they are suicidal as I have encountered, then this decision should be made with a Health Professional, Parent and Child and is no one elses business.
I cannot for the life see what is the problem in gender neutral cubicles toilets where you might wash your hands in a shared use sink. Hopefully, it will shame more fellas into washing their hands afterwards. Grosses me out with men using a public loo and then leaving without washing their hands- especially if there is a knob or door handle. Years ago I was in Upstate New York and the public loos didn't have doors. I suffered the most horrendous constipation.
And, probably my most controversial opinion- I cannot see the problem in Trans being able to have some say on which gendered prison they go to. Again, subject to the prison authorities and a medical opinion. I've been in a lot of prisons over the years with work, including women's prisons where the person would be much safer in a gender prison they felt more aligned to. But considering the current state of our prisons, drugs, overcrowding, horrendous bullying and internal (terrible) offending.,..this specific issue is probably about a thousand down the list in terms of gravity.
And yet Rosie Duffield is effectively persona no grata in the Labour party for.......... what exactly?
Woke is not really a useful term. It's primarily become used by people who don't like it. That to me suggests we ought to avoid it. Matthew Syed puts his finger on something very important, the ridiculous denigration of the west that seems to permeate so much nowadays and we get Nigel B's slippery response. Of course no individual can define objective reality. The question is whether we can be bothered to try. Hundreds of years of empiricism, reason and the search for knowledge impacting academic disciplines now all being infected with obscure theories from the humanities and politicised by Gramscian types who want to march through the institutions. All dismissed by fashionable bourgeois types who think they are educated because they reflexively oppose the Tories/right wing whatever. Yet they only demonstrate their ignorance of what is happening.
Point of order. Rosie Duffield isn't persona non grata in the Labour Party. She has been reselected to fight her Canterbury seat.
So welcome she is often the recipient of vexatious complaints by opponents in the party.
Nevertheless, my point was that her local CLP, who presumably know her best, reselected her as their candidate.
She's persona non grata in certain groups within the Labour Party, and a hero to other ones.
And of course, twas ever thus. Different bits of the Labour Party have been tearing chunks out of other ones since the party was founded.
What is unusual about the 'gender wars' is that it cuts across the usual factions, in that you have left-wing feminists uniting with the practical right, and certain kinds of #BeKind moderate progressives uniting with the far left.
It’s also something on which the Tories, with the exception of Penny Mourdaunt, are united.
Lab and Lib are going to tear themselves apart over gender and identity politics during the election campaign, it might the the one small chance that Sunak has to avoid a whitewash.
No they aren't.
Starmer runs a tight, disciplined ship and will not say anything controversial on the subject.
Tories are grasping at the thinnest of straws with this one. All they do is alienate the young even more with their divisive culture wars. This isn't America or France.
'The Tories and their divisive culture wars.'
You don't think the people attacking Rosie Duffield are culture warriors?
Culture Wars are what other people do. I just apply plain moral common sense.
For the life of me I don't understand what this woke thing is about. Why the right think they can make political capital out of it just shows how ideologically bankrupt they have become.
As far as I can see 99% of the population think that people have to compete competitively in the gender they were born into, and 99% of the population don't really agree with giving young children non reversible gender altering therapies. But if you do have the odd under 18 who is so unhappy with their gender that they are suicidal as I have encountered, then this decision should be made with a Health Professional, Parent and Child and is no one elses business.
I cannot for the life see what is the problem in gender neutral cubicles toilets where you might wash your hands in a shared use sink. Hopefully, it will shame more fellas into washing their hands afterwards. Grosses me out with men using a public loo and then leaving without washing their hands- especially if there is a knob or door handle. Years ago I was in Upstate New York and the public loos didn't have doors. I suffered the most horrendous constipation.
And, probably my most controversial opinion- I cannot see the problem in Trans being able to have some say on which gendered prison they go to. Again, subject to the prison authorities and a medical opinion. I've been in a lot of prisons over the years with work, including women's prisons where the person would be much safer in a gender prison they felt more aligned to. But considering the current state of our prisons, drugs, overcrowding, horrendous bullying and internal (terrible) offending.,..this specific issue is probably about a thousand down the list in terms of gravity.
And yet Rosie Duffield is effectively persona no grata in the Labour party for.......... what exactly?
Woke is not really a useful term. It's primarily become used by people who don't like it. That to me suggests we ought to avoid it. Matthew Syed puts his finger on something very important, the ridiculous denigration of the west that seems to permeate so much nowadays and we get Nigel B's slippery response. Of course no individual can define objective reality. The question is whether we can be bothered to try. Hundreds of years of empiricism, reason and the search for knowledge impacting academic disciplines now all being infected with obscure theories from the humanities and politicised by Gramscian types who want to march through the institutions. All dismissed by fashionable bourgeois types who think they are educated because they reflexively oppose the Tories/right wing whatever. Yet they only demonstrate their ignorance of what is happening.
Point of order. Rosie Duffield isn't persona non grata in the Labour Party. She has been reselected to fight her Canterbury seat.
So welcome she is often the recipient of vexatious complaints by opponents in the party.
Nevertheless, my point was that her local CLP, who presumably know her best, reselected her as their candidate.
She's persona non grata in certain groups within the Labour Party, and a hero to other ones.
And of course, twas ever thus. Different bits of the Labour Party have been tearing chunks out of other ones since the party was founded.
What is unusual about the 'gender wars' is that it cuts across the usual factions, in that you have left-wing feminists uniting with the practical right, and certain kinds of #BeKind moderate progressives uniting with the far left.
That's true that it cuts across usual factions although I don't totally agree with your categories here. The whole right not just the 'practical' wing are in the anti camp on the trans issue. As are plenty of feminists, yes, but not a majority and even less so with feminists who are genuinely of the left. Age is the biggest signifier of views on this one, it would appear. No surprise. I guess this is true of many things.
It's really striking how it's panned out over the last few years. The liberalising reforms (to gender recognition) that blew up in Scotland and are now considered so risky to Labour's electoral prospects in England that the party has decided not to mention them, let alone pursue them, were not so long ago a matter of consensus or close to it; put forward by a Conservative government, agreed to by most of the Opposition parties, supported by the medical profession.
To go from that to where we are now (where any change on gender recognition is as likely to make it more restrictive as it is less) has been quite the turnaround. It's interesting to ponder why. I have theories, no doubt others do too. But this is another thing that's (potentially) unusual about this. You don't often see social reform going backwards. Paused for a time whilst opinion catches up, yes, but not into reverse. Yet it could be the case here. Trans rights stalled or going backwards? Time will tell.
I know German speaking Italy well. Been several times
It’s a marvellous part of the world. Germany efficiency with Italian charm and mainly Italian and excellent food. Good wine. Exquisite Dolomite landscapes. Charming towns and cities - Bolzano etc
Go!
Skiing the Dolomites was my favourite. Did it many times. The Sella Ronda is a vast and lovely ski route, the towns and villages are lovely and the views magnificent.
Seeing Oompah bands and lederhosen in Italy though is a bit disconcerting.
I enjoy the weird clash
The Dolomites are right up there as one of the most majestic landscapes in the world. You can kind of understand why Austria and Italy fought so bitterly over them
The beauty is unreal. Soaring icebound peaks over ravishing green meadows with fairy tale castles and winsome villages everywhere
They are also culturally fascinating. Eg there’s a kind of primitive German - cimbrian? I’ll have to check - spoken by a few hundred people in maybe two villages on the Italian side
It is said to be like 12th century German. I actually heard some people speak it! Really odd - sounded like they were halfway to singing
You ever been to the Tatras? There's a weird Polish serial killery thing on Netflix called Forst, lots of sex and gross violence with some historical Nazi atrocities thrown in so you might like it, but in any case the spectacular views of aforementioned Tatras are the best thing about it. Might even pencil in a visit in my would like to but probably never will bucket list.
Never been but have heard good things. I believe the great Karol Wojtyla - Pope John Paul 2 - loved to hike there and found much spiritual inspiration. Which is some recommendation
Zakopane is a fairly easy train ride from Krakow, It really is a lovely place. JP II was actually from the region, from Wadowice, and the locals, the Goraly, regard him very much as one of their own.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
If polls show a Unionist majority at Holyrood and Labour winning most seats in Scotland again, then polls on Scottish independence become completely irrelevant.
The Scottish government would then not even have a majority for indyref2 at Holyrood for Westminster to ignore. You could have 99% for independence in polls but without an SNP or SNP and Green pro independence majority at Holyrood and an SNP majority of Scottish MPs, who cares?
I hesitate to 'crowbar in' something about Scottish indy on a thread about cricket, but can you list the times that you accepted that SNP having most Scottish seats, polls showing roughly half of the electorate supported indy and an indy majority at Holyrood were relevant?
Westminster is supreme yes, as the SC confirmed, the issue was relevant but Westminster had the final say.
No SNP majority anywhere and the issue becomes irrelevant with Westminster still having the final say
When quite consistently, 45% of Scots say they want out, that is far from being irrelevant. It doesn't take much to turn that number into a majority.
Yes it is irrelevant, indeed 99% of Scots for independence would be irrelevant unless the SNP or SNP and Greens had a majority at Holyrood and there was an SNP majority of Scottish MPs
If 99% of Scots wanted independence, they would get it. If 50% + of Scots want independence, consistently, they will get it, because there is no appetite to hold Scotland in the Union at gunpoint.
No they would not. As the UK Supreme Court confirmed Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union.
So Westminster could block it and if the SNP don't have a majority of Scottish MPs they couldn't even try and declare UDI and if the SNP don't even have a majority alone or with the Greens at Holyrood they couldn't even ask Westminster for an indyref2
You are mixing up “could” and “would”.
If 99% of Scots wanted independence, Westminster would grant it. I’d say that would hold down to 60%+ (slightly higher than @Sean_F ).
They wouldn’t *have* to. They *could* seek to hold Scotland against the settled will of the inhabitants. But they *would not* do that
If there was a Unionist majority at Westminster and Holyrood no Westminster would not grant independence whatever polls said on it.
Albeit the chances of there being no SNP majority in Scotland if independence support was at 99% is near zero but it does show the point is not what polls say if that is not backed up by nationalist majorities at Holyrood and amongst Scottish MPs
In these urgent and dangerous times for the west, if a pro Indy majority ever emerges in Scotland then England will have no choice but to treat Scotland the way we treated our similar, strategically/geographically important colony in the Chagos islands
We will have to move all the indigenous people - the Scots - out of Scotland, and settle them somewhere else. Perhaps West Falklands, which they might like as it has a superior climate to their homeland and is also devoid of Glasgow, Dundee and Cumbernauld. We could grant them “West Falklands Citizenship” as an incentive
Then we turn most of Scotland into a National Park, to protect the local flora - moss - and fauna - midges, the rest of it will be reserved for the requisite military bases needed by British troops and ships to take on Jonny Slav
I know German speaking Italy well. Been several times
It’s a marvellous part of the world. Germany efficiency with Italian charm and mainly Italian and excellent food. Good wine. Exquisite Dolomite landscapes. Charming towns and cities - Bolzano etc
Go!
Skiing the Dolomites was my favourite. Did it many times. The Sella Ronda is a vast and lovely ski route, the towns and villages are lovely and the views magnificent.
Seeing Oompah bands and lederhosen in Italy though is a bit disconcerting.
I enjoy the weird clash
The Dolomites are right up there as one of the most majestic landscapes in the world. You can kind of understand why Austria and Italy fought so bitterly over them
The beauty is unreal. Soaring icebound peaks over ravishing green meadows with fairy tale castles and winsome villages everywhere
They are also culturally fascinating. Eg there’s a kind of primitive German - cimbrian? I’ll have to check - spoken by a few hundred people in maybe two villages on the Italian side
It is said to be like 12th century German. I actually heard some people speak it! Really odd - sounded like they were halfway to singing
You ever been to the Tatras? There's a weird Polish serial killery thing on Netflix called Forst, lots of sex and gross violence with some historical Nazi atrocities thrown in so you might like it, but in any case the spectacular views of aforementioned Tatras are the best thing about it. Might even pencil in a visit in my would like to but probably never will bucket list.
Never been but have heard good things. I believe the great Karol Wojtyla - Pope John Paul 2 - loved to hike there and found much spiritual inspiration. Which is some recommendation
Zakopane is a fairly easy train ride from Krakow, It really is a lovely place. JP II was actually from the region, from Wadowice, and the locals, the Goraly, regard him very much as one of their own.
I was in Zakopane shortly after the Wall came down. Stunning scenery; the mountains shared with Slovakia to the south. I expect it’s much more touristy and commercialised than when I got to see it.
If polls show a Unionist majority at Holyrood and Labour winning most seats in Scotland again, then polls on Scottish independence become completely irrelevant.
The Scottish government would then not even have a majority for indyref2 at Holyrood for Westminster to ignore. You could have 99% for independence in polls but without an SNP or SNP and Green pro independence majority at Holyrood and an SNP majority of Scottish MPs, who cares?
It isn't irrelevant. It literally sucks the life out of Scottish politics. Yer man Duguid is doing His Entire Campaign attacking the SNP. His last 2 leaflets entirely devoted to it. He tweeted yesterday knocking on doors and how people want him to stop the SNP.
Irrelevant? Your lack of knowledge on the subject. Sorry, *any* subject.
Yes it is irrelevant. We are a representative democracy not a direct democracy, if the SNP have no majority of MSPs or Scottish MPs their campaign for independence is completely irrelevant, exactly as it was even under the SNP minority government of 2007-2011 for example.
If I don't kowtow to your conformist left liberal ideological demands, tough
Independence ebbs and flows in Scotland and always has
However, it is far from irrelevant and you insult Scots by your arrogant attitude towards them
No I don't, if Scottish Nationalists feel insulted because they do not got appeased so be it, if they can't even get a majority for their parties going forward at Westminster or Holyrood they deserve to be ignored even more
Scots in general take a very poor view of an Englishman pontificating on their politics especially one as ignorant as you are of the Scottish people
When I first arrived in Lossiemouth in 1962 and met my future wife's family, it was said he is Englishman but he is very nice
It wasn't exactly true as I am half Welsh
Indeed I expect @RochdalePioneers may have experienced similar sentiments
It is the average Scot switching from nationalist SNP to unionist Labour regardless of what I say, I opposed the SNP even when they had a clear majority
Yes, but as the polls show and the thread header independence remains a big issue in Scotland and your attitude is an excellent recruiting sergeant for independence
Just come back from my black pudden roll and we find HYUFD is basically denying that it is possible for Scots to be independent never mind how they vote. No matter how many MSPs and MPs for Scottish constituences are pro-indy, no matter what the opinion polls say.
Meanwhile, I expect HYUFD has a solar topi to burnish and a spinal pad to rinse and air off from this morning's session.
If polls show a Unionist majority at Holyrood and Labour winning most seats in Scotland again, then polls on Scottish independence become completely irrelevant.
The Scottish government would then not even have a majority for indyref2 at Holyrood for Westminster to ignore. You could have 99% for independence in polls but without an SNP or SNP and Green pro independence majority at Holyrood and an SNP majority of Scottish MPs, who cares?
I hesitate to 'crowbar in' something about Scottish indy on a thread about cricket, but can you list the times that you accepted that SNP having most Scottish seats, polls showing roughly half of the electorate supported indy and an indy majority at Holyrood were relevant?
Westminster is supreme yes, as the SC confirmed, the issue was relevant but Westminster had the final say.
No SNP majority anywhere and the issue becomes irrelevant with Westminster still having the final say
When quite consistently, 45% of Scots say they want out, that is far from being irrelevant. It doesn't take much to turn that number into a majority.
Yes it is irrelevant, indeed 99% of Scots for independence would be irrelevant unless the SNP or SNP and Greens had a majority at Holyrood and there was an SNP majority of Scottish MPs
If 99% of Scots wanted independence, they would get it. If 50% + of Scots want independence, consistently, they will get it, because there is no appetite to hold Scotland in the Union at gunpoint.
@HYUFD’s comments show that there are some who would hold Scotland in the Union at gunpoint.
For the life of me I don't understand what this woke thing is about. Why the right think they can make political capital out of it just shows how ideologically bankrupt they have become.
As far as I can see 99% of the population think that people have to compete competitively in the gender they were born into, and 99% of the population don't really agree with giving young children non reversible gender altering therapies. But if you do have the odd under 18 who is so unhappy with their gender that they are suicidal as I have encountered, then this decision should be made with a Health Professional, Parent and Child and is no one elses business.
I cannot for the life see what is the problem in gender neutral cubicles toilets where you might wash your hands in a shared use sink. Hopefully, it will shame more fellas into washing their hands afterwards. Grosses me out with men using a public loo and then leaving without washing their hands- especially if there is a knob or door handle. Years ago I was in Upstate New York and the public loos didn't have doors. I suffered the most horrendous constipation.
And, probably my most controversial opinion- I cannot see the problem in Trans being able to have some say on which gendered prison they go to. Again, subject to the prison authorities and a medical opinion. I've been in a lot of prisons over the years with work, including women's prisons where the person would be much safer in a gender prison they felt more aligned to. But considering the current state of our prisons, drugs, overcrowding, horrendous bullying and internal (terrible) offending.,..this specific issue is probably about a thousand down the list in terms of gravity.
And yet Rosie Duffield is effectively persona no grata in the Labour party for.......... what exactly?
Woke is not really a useful term. It's primarily become used by people who don't like it. That to me suggests we ought to avoid it. Matthew Syed puts his finger on something very important, the ridiculous denigration of the west that seems to permeate so much nowadays and we get Nigel B's slippery response. Of course no individual can define objective reality. The question is whether we can be bothered to try. Hundreds of years of empiricism, reason and the search for knowledge impacting academic disciplines now all being infected with obscure theories from the humanities and politicised by Gramscian types who want to march through the institutions. All dismissed by fashionable bourgeois types who think they are educated because they reflexively oppose the Tories/right wing whatever. Yet they only demonstrate their ignorance of what is happening.
Ah, yes, hundreds of years of academic thought, all dismissed by… Hold on, dismissed by who? “I think the people of this country have had enough of experts,” was said by Michael Gove, not Owen Jones.
Again you're so stuck in political tribalism you cannot see it. I'm not claiming people on right don't say anti intellectual things. Of course they do it all the time. I wouldn't make a fuss if the odd left wing politician did it either. But almost all the pressure to dumb down our educational institutions is coming from the left.
Well, hundreds of years of academic thought have taught me that statements should be evidenced. What’s your evidence that “almost all” the pressure comes from the left? The right’s anti-climate change stance, the sort of censorship DeSantis has introduced in Florida, the UK Govt policy to disinvite speakers if they ever said anything critical of them, introducing a law to declare Rwanda safe regardless of evidence… I see plenty of pressure from the right.
There is also pressure from the left, and we should resist anti-intellectualism from both sides.
Your first two points on anti climate change and Ron De Santis relate to a different country. Unless you could please advise me of a major UK institution that is anti climate change?
My last two points relate to this country. And Sunak's soft-pedalling on climate change is well reported.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
Choosing sides in the woke wars is what the protagonists on both sides want, and what should be resisted.
There are silly views and examples on both extremes, but the vast majority live without it impacting their life and using sensible judgement and basic politeness. That is the only sane place to be.
I know German speaking Italy well. Been several times
It’s a marvellous part of the world. Germany efficiency with Italian charm and mainly Italian and excellent food. Good wine. Exquisite Dolomite landscapes. Charming towns and cities - Bolzano etc
Go!
Skiing the Dolomites was my favourite. Did it many times. The Sella Ronda is a vast and lovely ski route, the towns and villages are lovely and the views magnificent.
Seeing Oompah bands and lederhosen in Italy though is a bit disconcerting.
I enjoy the weird clash
The Dolomites are right up there as one of the most majestic landscapes in the world. You can kind of understand why Austria and Italy fought so bitterly over them
The beauty is unreal. Soaring icebound peaks over ravishing green meadows with fairy tale castles and winsome villages everywhere
They are also culturally fascinating. Eg there’s a kind of primitive German - cimbrian? I’ll have to check - spoken by a few hundred people in maybe two villages on the Italian side
It is said to be like 12th century German. I actually heard some people speak it! Really odd - sounded like they were halfway to singing
You ever been to the Tatras? There's a weird Polish serial killery thing on Netflix called Forst, lots of sex and gross violence with some historical Nazi atrocities thrown in so you might like it, but in any case the spectacular views of aforementioned Tatras are the best thing about it. Might even pencil in a visit in my would like to but probably never will bucket list.
Never been but have heard good things. I believe the great Karol Wojtyla - Pope John Paul 2 - loved to hike there and found much spiritual inspiration. Which is some recommendation
Zakopane is a fairly easy train ride from Krakow, It really is a lovely place. JP II was actually from the region, from Wadowice, and the locals, the Goraly, regard him very much as one of their own.
I had a weird epiphany about JP2 when I was in Krakow in the summer, en route Ukraine. I was standing on a charming cobbled lane thinking about nothing much, then I looked up and saw beautiful Krakow cathedral on its crag and I was suddenly filled with thoughts of John Paul 2 as I realised “that’s his cathedral” (and he hadn’t entered my head for the entire trip until the moment). I began thinking about him intensely, wondering if the sheer beauty of Krakow formed his religiosity in part, and also his opposition to communism, which is, in general, so spiritually and artistically ugly
Then I looked across the road and realised with a shock that I was standing right outside his house. There was a plaque on it (which I had not seen to that point)
How weird is that? Like a kind of ghost but good
JP2 is one of the few people I regard as an absolute unalloyed hero of the 20th century, or maybe any century. An outstanding figure. The more you read about his life the more impressive he becomes - not less, as is often the case
If polls show a Unionist majority at Holyrood and Labour winning most seats in Scotland again, then polls on Scottish independence become completely irrelevant.
The Scottish government would then not even have a majority for indyref2 at Holyrood for Westminster to ignore. You could have 99% for independence in polls but without an SNP or SNP and Green pro independence majority at Holyrood and an SNP majority of Scottish MPs, who cares?
I hesitate to 'crowbar in' something about Scottish indy on a thread about cricket, but can you list the times that you accepted that SNP having most Scottish seats, polls showing roughly half of the electorate supported indy and an indy majority at Holyrood were relevant?
Westminster is supreme yes, as the SC confirmed, the issue was relevant but Westminster had the final say.
No SNP majority anywhere and the issue becomes irrelevant with Westminster still having the final say
When quite consistently, 45% of Scots say they want out, that is far from being irrelevant. It doesn't take much to turn that number into a majority.
Yes it is irrelevant, indeed 99% of Scots for independence would be irrelevant unless the SNP or SNP and Greens had a majority at Holyrood and there was an SNP majority of Scottish MPs
If 99% of Scots wanted independence, they would get it. If 50% + of Scots want independence, consistently, they will get it, because there is no appetite to hold Scotland in the Union at gunpoint.
@HYUFD’s comments show that there are some who would hold Scotland in the Union at gunpoint.
In a world where Putin has invaded and captured much of Ukraine, China threatens Taiwan and Spain refused Catalonia even 1 independence referendum despite a nationalist majority there, Scottish nationalists have got off pretty lightly from Westminster
If polls show a Unionist majority at Holyrood and Labour winning most seats in Scotland again, then polls on Scottish independence become completely irrelevant.
The Scottish government would then not even have a majority for indyref2 at Holyrood for Westminster to ignore. You could have 99% for independence in polls but without an SNP or SNP and Green pro independence majority at Holyrood and an SNP majority of Scottish MPs, who cares?
I hesitate to 'crowbar in' something about Scottish indy on a thread about cricket, but can you list the times that you accepted that SNP having most Scottish seats, polls showing roughly half of the electorate supported indy and an indy majority at Holyrood were relevant?
Westminster is supreme yes, as the SC confirmed, the issue was relevant but Westminster had the final say.
No SNP majority anywhere and the issue becomes irrelevant with Westminster still having the final say
When quite consistently, 45% of Scots say they want out, that is far from being irrelevant. It doesn't take much to turn that number into a majority.
Yes it is irrelevant, indeed 99% of Scots for independence would be irrelevant unless the SNP or SNP and Greens had a majority at Holyrood and there was an SNP majority of Scottish MPs
If 99% of Scots wanted independence, they would get it. If 50% + of Scots want independence, consistently, they will get it, because there is no appetite to hold Scotland in the Union at gunpoint.
No they would not. As the UK Supreme Court confirmed Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union.
So Westminster could block it and if the SNP don't have a majority of Scottish MPs they couldn't even try and declare UDI and if the SNP don't even have a majority alone or with the Greens at Holyrood they couldn't even ask Westminster for an indyref2
You are mixing up “could” and “would”.
If 99% of Scots wanted independence, Westminster would grant it. I’d say that would hold down to 60%+ (slightly higher than @Sean_F ).
They wouldn’t *have* to. They *could* seek to hold Scotland against the settled will of the inhabitants. But they *would not* do that
If there was a Unionist majority at Westminster and Holyrood no Westminster would not grant independence whatever polls said on it.
Albeit the chances of there being no SNP majority in Scotland if independence support was at 99% is near zero but it does show the point is not what polls say if that is not backed up by nationalist majorities at Holyrood and amongst Scottish MPs
There would come a point when they would. Marches on the street? Mass civil disobedience? 30 years of polls 99% in favour of independence?
For the life of me I don't understand what this woke thing is about. Why the right think they can make political capital out of it just shows how ideologically bankrupt they have become.
As far as I can see 99% of the population think that people have to compete competitively in the gender they were born into, and 99% of the population don't really agree with giving young children non reversible gender altering therapies. But if you do have the odd under 18 who is so unhappy with their gender that they are suicidal as I have encountered, then this decision should be made with a Health Professional, Parent and Child and is no one elses business.
I cannot for the life see what is the problem in gender neutral cubicles toilets where you might wash your hands in a shared use sink. Hopefully, it will shame more fellas into washing their hands afterwards. Grosses me out with men using a public loo and then leaving without washing their hands- especially if there is a knob or door handle. Years ago I was in Upstate New York and the public loos didn't have doors. I suffered the most horrendous constipation.
And, probably my most controversial opinion- I cannot see the problem in Trans being able to have some say on which gendered prison they go to. Again, subject to the prison authorities and a medical opinion. I've been in a lot of prisons over the years with work, including women's prisons where the person would be much safer in a gender prison they felt more aligned to. But considering the current state of our prisons, drugs, overcrowding, horrendous bullying and internal (terrible) offending.,..this specific issue is probably about a thousand down the list in terms of gravity.
And yet Rosie Duffield is effectively persona no grata in the Labour party for.......... what exactly?
Woke is not really a useful term. It's primarily become used by people who don't like it. That to me suggests we ought to avoid it. Matthew Syed puts his finger on something very important, the ridiculous denigration of the west that seems to permeate so much nowadays and we get Nigel B's slippery response. Of course no individual can define objective reality. The question is whether we can be bothered to try. Hundreds of years of empiricism, reason and the search for knowledge impacting academic disciplines now all being infected with obscure theories from the humanities and politicised by Gramscian types who want to march through the institutions. All dismissed by fashionable bourgeois types who think they are educated because they reflexively oppose the Tories/right wing whatever. Yet they only demonstrate their ignorance of what is happening.
Point of order. Rosie Duffield isn't persona non grata in the Labour Party. She has been reselected to fight her Canterbury seat.
So welcome she is often the recipient of vexatious complaints by opponents in the party.
Nevertheless, my point was that her local CLP, who presumably know her best, reselected her as their candidate.
She's persona non grata in certain groups within the Labour Party, and a hero to other ones.
And of course, twas ever thus. Different bits of the Labour Party have been tearing chunks out of other ones since the party was founded.
What is unusual about the 'gender wars' is that it cuts across the usual factions, in that you have left-wing feminists uniting with the practical right, and certain kinds of #BeKind moderate progressives uniting with the far left.
That's true that it cuts across usual factions although I don't totally agree with your categories here. The whole right not just the 'practical' wing are in the anti camp on the trans issue. As are plenty of feminists, yes, but not a majority and even less so with feminists who are genuinely of the left. Age is the biggest signifier of views on this one, it would appear. No surprise. I guess this is true of many things.
It's really striking how it's panned out over the last few years. The liberalising reforms (to gender recognition) that blew up in Scotland and are now considered so risky to Labour's electoral prospects in England that the party has decided not to mention them, let alone pursue them, were not so long ago a matter of consensus or close to it; put forward by a Conservative government, agreed to by most of the Opposition parties, supported by the medical profession.
To go from that to where we are now (where any change on gender recognition is as likely to make it more restrictive as it is less) has been quite the turnaround. It's interesting to ponder why. I have theories, no doubt others do too. But this is another thing that's (potentially) unusual about this. You don't often see social reform going backwards. Paused for a time whilst opinion catches up, yes, but not into reverse. Yet it could be the case here. Trans rights stalled or going backwards? Time will tell.
'Left wing feminists' seems to be very much an eye of the beholder thing nowadays. Don't imagine there are that many genuinely lefty fems in the LGB Alliance currently renting an office at 55 Tufton St.
If polls show a Unionist majority at Holyrood and Labour winning most seats in Scotland again, then polls on Scottish independence become completely irrelevant.
The Scottish government would then not even have a majority for indyref2 at Holyrood for Westminster to ignore. You could have 99% for independence in polls but without an SNP or SNP and Green pro independence majority at Holyrood and an SNP majority of Scottish MPs, who cares?
I hesitate to 'crowbar in' something about Scottish indy on a thread about cricket, but can you list the times that you accepted that SNP having most Scottish seats, polls showing roughly half of the electorate supported indy and an indy majority at Holyrood were relevant?
Westminster is supreme yes, as the SC confirmed, the issue was relevant but Westminster had the final say.
No SNP majority anywhere and the issue becomes irrelevant with Westminster still having the final say
When quite consistently, 45% of Scots say they want out, that is far from being irrelevant. It doesn't take much to turn that number into a majority.
Yes it is irrelevant, indeed 99% of Scots for independence would be irrelevant unless the SNP or SNP and Greens had a majority at Holyrood and there was an SNP majority of Scottish MPs
If 99% of Scots wanted independence, they would get it. If 50% + of Scots want independence, consistently, they will get it, because there is no appetite to hold Scotland in the Union at gunpoint.
No they would not. As the UK Supreme Court confirmed Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union.
So Westminster could block it and if the SNP don't have a majority of Scottish MPs they couldn't even try and declare UDI and if the SNP don't even have a majority alone or with the Greens at Holyrood they couldn't even ask Westminster for an indyref2
You are mixing up “could” and “would”.
If 99% of Scots wanted independence, Westminster would grant it. I’d say that would hold down to 60%+ (slightly higher than @Sean_F ).
They wouldn’t *have* to. They *could* seek to hold Scotland against the settled will of the inhabitants. But they *would not* do that
If there was a Unionist majority at Westminster and Holyrood no Westminster would not grant independence whatever polls said on it.
Albeit the chances of there being no SNP majority in Scotland if independence support was at 99% is near zero but it does show the point is not what polls say if that is not backed up by nationalist majorities at Holyrood and amongst Scottish MPs
In these urgent and dangerous times for the west, if a pro Indy majority ever emerges in Scotland then England will have no choice but to treat Scotland the way we treated our similar, strategically/geographically important colony in the Chagos islands
We will have to move all the indigenous people - the Scots - out of Scotland, and settle them somewhere else. Perhaps West Falklands, which they might like as it has a superior climate to their homeland and is also devoid of Glasgow, Dundee and Cumbernauld. We could grant them “West Falklands Citizenship” as an incentive
Then we turn most of Scotland into a National Park, to protect the local flora - moss - and fauna - midges, the rest of it will be reserved for the requisite military bases needed by British troops and ships to take on Jonny Slav
Indian PM Modi of course is trying similar in Kashmir, moving Muslims out
If polls show a Unionist majority at Holyrood and Labour winning most seats in Scotland again, then polls on Scottish independence become completely irrelevant.
The Scottish government would then not even have a majority for indyref2 at Holyrood for Westminster to ignore. You could have 99% for independence in polls but without an SNP or SNP and Green pro independence majority at Holyrood and an SNP majority of Scottish MPs, who cares?
I hesitate to 'crowbar in' something about Scottish indy on a thread about cricket, but can you list the times that you accepted that SNP having most Scottish seats, polls showing roughly half of the electorate supported indy and an indy majority at Holyrood were relevant?
Westminster is supreme yes, as the SC confirmed, the issue was relevant but Westminster had the final say.
No SNP majority anywhere and the issue becomes irrelevant with Westminster still having the final say
When quite consistently, 45% of Scots say they want out, that is far from being irrelevant. It doesn't take much to turn that number into a majority.
Yes it is irrelevant, indeed 99% of Scots for independence would be irrelevant unless the SNP or SNP and Greens had a majority at Holyrood and there was an SNP majority of Scottish MPs
If 99% of Scots wanted independence, they would get it. If 50% + of Scots want independence, consistently, they will get it, because there is no appetite to hold Scotland in the Union at gunpoint.
@HYUFD’s comments show that there are some who would hold Scotland in the Union at gunpoint.
In a world where Putin has invaded and captured much of Ukraine, China threatens Taiwan and Spain refused Catalonia even 1 independence referendum despite a nationalist majority there, Scottish nationalists have got off pretty lightly from Westminster
I thought you didn't approve of Hispanophone governments holding territory where the locals didn't want them. You wanted to start nuclear wars over Gib and the Falklands.
If polls show a Unionist majority at Holyrood and Labour winning most seats in Scotland again, then polls on Scottish independence become completely irrelevant.
The Scottish government would then not even have a majority for indyref2 at Holyrood for Westminster to ignore. You could have 99% for independence in polls but without an SNP or SNP and Green pro independence majority at Holyrood and an SNP majority of Scottish MPs, who cares?
I hesitate to 'crowbar in' something about Scottish indy on a thread about cricket, but can you list the times that you accepted that SNP having most Scottish seats, polls showing roughly half of the electorate supported indy and an indy majority at Holyrood were relevant?
Westminster is supreme yes, as the SC confirmed, the issue was relevant but Westminster had the final say.
No SNP majority anywhere and the issue becomes irrelevant with Westminster still having the final say
When quite consistently, 45% of Scots say they want out, that is far from being irrelevant. It doesn't take much to turn that number into a majority.
Yes it is irrelevant, indeed 99% of Scots for independence would be irrelevant unless the SNP or SNP and Greens had a majority at Holyrood and there was an SNP majority of Scottish MPs
If 99% of Scots wanted independence, they would get it. If 50% + of Scots want independence, consistently, they will get it, because there is no appetite to hold Scotland in the Union at gunpoint.
@HYUFD’s comments show that there are some who would hold Scotland in the Union at gunpoint.
In a world where Putin has invaded and captured much of Ukraine, China threatens Taiwan and Spain refused Catalonia even 1 independence referendum despite a nationalist majority there, Scottish nationalists have got off pretty lightly from Westminster
If polls show a Unionist majority at Holyrood and Labour winning most seats in Scotland again, then polls on Scottish independence become completely irrelevant.
The Scottish government would then not even have a majority for indyref2 at Holyrood for Westminster to ignore. You could have 99% for independence in polls but without an SNP or SNP and Green pro independence majority at Holyrood and an SNP majority of Scottish MPs, who cares?
I hesitate to 'crowbar in' something about Scottish indy on a thread about cricket, but can you list the times that you accepted that SNP having most Scottish seats, polls showing roughly half of the electorate supported indy and an indy majority at Holyrood were relevant?
Westminster is supreme yes, as the SC confirmed, the issue was relevant but Westminster had the final say.
No SNP majority anywhere and the issue becomes irrelevant with Westminster still having the final say
When quite consistently, 45% of Scots say they want out, that is far from being irrelevant. It doesn't take much to turn that number into a majority.
Yes it is irrelevant, indeed 99% of Scots for independence would be irrelevant unless the SNP or SNP and Greens had a majority at Holyrood and there was an SNP majority of Scottish MPs
If 99% of Scots wanted independence, they would get it. If 50% + of Scots want independence, consistently, they will get it, because there is no appetite to hold Scotland in the Union at gunpoint.
No they would not. As the UK Supreme Court confirmed Westminster and Westminster alone has the final say on the Union.
So Westminster could block it and if the SNP don't have a majority of Scottish MPs they couldn't even try and declare UDI and if the SNP don't even have a majority alone or with the Greens at Holyrood they couldn't even ask Westminster for an indyref2
You are mixing up “could” and “would”.
If 99% of Scots wanted independence, Westminster would grant it. I’d say that would hold down to 60%+ (slightly higher than @Sean_F ).
They wouldn’t *have* to. They *could* seek to hold Scotland against the settled will of the inhabitants. But they *would not* do that
If there was a Unionist majority at Westminster and Holyrood no Westminster would not grant independence whatever polls said on it.
Albeit the chances of there being no SNP majority in Scotland if independence support was at 99% is near zero but it does show the point is not what polls say if that is not backed up by nationalist majorities at Holyrood and amongst Scottish MPs
There would come a point when they would. Marches on the street? Mass civil disobedience? 30 years of polls 99% in favour of independence?
You live in a very simple world, my friend.
Irrelevant unless there was clear SNP majorities at Holyrood and Westminster and a UDI declaration but even then as Madrid showed that could be ignored if the margin was closer to 50% 50%
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
Choosing sides in the woke wars is what the protagonists on both sides want, and what should be resisted.
There are silly views and examples on both extremes, but the vast majority live without it impacting their life and using sensible judgement and basic politeness. That is the only sane place to be.
But Wokeness does impact all their lives, in myriad ways, it’s just that many don’t realise yet. But they will
It certainly impacts parents when their 12 year old kids come home from school and announce they are “non binary” and want to take puberty suppressing drugs
In a way it is like public attitudes to legal migration. It is not that high yet on the list of public concerns, albeit rising. But that is because most people have no idea of the scale of legal migration - ie that we have taken 1.3 MILLION people in two years, an absolutely astounding and historically unprecedented number
But they are slowly beginning to wake up - some people intuitively sense a change, without quite knowing why
On topic: As an outsider, I observe that Scots, like Americans, don't seem to much like any of the party leaders. Is this because their party leaders are all unlikeable, the party leaders have failed, some combination, or it depends on which leader you are discussing?
Possibly related: Are Scots, like Americans, down on most of their institutions, as well as their leaders?
If polls show a Unionist majority at Holyrood and Labour winning most seats in Scotland again, then polls on Scottish independence become completely irrelevant.
The Scottish government would then not even have a majority for indyref2 at Holyrood for Westminster to ignore. You could have 99% for independence in polls but without an SNP or SNP and Green pro independence majority at Holyrood and an SNP majority of Scottish MPs, who cares?
I hesitate to 'crowbar in' something about Scottish indy on a thread about cricket, but can you list the times that you accepted that SNP having most Scottish seats, polls showing roughly half of the electorate supported indy and an indy majority at Holyrood were relevant?
Westminster is supreme yes, as the SC confirmed, the issue was relevant but Westminster had the final say.
No SNP majority anywhere and the issue becomes irrelevant with Westminster still having the final say
When quite consistently, 45% of Scots say they want out, that is far from being irrelevant. It doesn't take much to turn that number into a majority.
Yes it is irrelevant, indeed 99% of Scots for independence would be irrelevant unless the SNP or SNP and Greens had a majority at Holyrood and there was an SNP majority of Scottish MPs
If 99% of Scots wanted independence, they would get it. If 50% + of Scots want independence, consistently, they will get it, because there is no appetite to hold Scotland in the Union at gunpoint.
@HYUFD’s comments show that there are some who would hold Scotland in the Union at gunpoint.
In a world where Putin has invaded and captured much of Ukraine, China threatens Taiwan and Spain refused Catalonia even 1 independence referendum despite a nationalist majority there, Scottish nationalists have got off pretty lightly from Westminster
I thought you didn't approve of Hispanophone governments holding territory where the locals didn't want them. You wanted to start nuclear wars over Gib and the Falklands.
They are territories of a foreign power, us, not internal parts of Spain
If polls show a Unionist majority at Holyrood and Labour winning most seats in Scotland again, then polls on Scottish independence become completely irrelevant.
The Scottish government would then not even have a majority for indyref2 at Holyrood for Westminster to ignore. You could have 99% for independence in polls but without an SNP or SNP and Green pro independence majority at Holyrood and an SNP majority of Scottish MPs, who cares?
I hesitate to 'crowbar in' something about Scottish indy on a thread about cricket, but can you list the times that you accepted that SNP having most Scottish seats, polls showing roughly half of the electorate supported indy and an indy majority at Holyrood were relevant?
Westminster is supreme yes, as the SC confirmed, the issue was relevant but Westminster had the final say.
No SNP majority anywhere and the issue becomes irrelevant with Westminster still having the final say
When quite consistently, 45% of Scots say they want out, that is far from being irrelevant. It doesn't take much to turn that number into a majority.
Yes it is irrelevant, indeed 99% of Scots for independence would be irrelevant unless the SNP or SNP and Greens had a majority at Holyrood and there was an SNP majority of Scottish MPs
If 99% of Scots wanted independence, they would get it. If 50% + of Scots want independence, consistently, they will get it, because there is no appetite to hold Scotland in the Union at gunpoint.
@HYUFD’s comments show that there are some who would hold Scotland in the Union at gunpoint.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more.
Well clearly energy and internet are working or you wouldn't have been able to post that comment or for me to read it.
Likewise everything in my house seems to work and so does pretty much everything at other houses I go to and similarly at my workplace, at the shops and pubs and health club and sporting events I go to.
Even the public services I come into contact with seem to work okay.
So what exactly are the things that are broken ?
This country has problems, as it always has and as other countries do.
But a requirement of sorting them out is to be able to identify them.
And how can they be identified amid the hyperbole of 'everything is broken' and 'nothing is working'.
If polls show a Unionist majority at Holyrood and Labour winning most seats in Scotland again, then polls on Scottish independence become completely irrelevant.
The Scottish government would then not even have a majority for indyref2 at Holyrood for Westminster to ignore. You could have 99% for independence in polls but without an SNP or SNP and Green pro independence majority at Holyrood and an SNP majority of Scottish MPs, who cares?
I hesitate to 'crowbar in' something about Scottish indy on a thread about cricket, but can you list the times that you accepted that SNP having most Scottish seats, polls showing roughly half of the electorate supported indy and an indy majority at Holyrood were relevant?
Westminster is supreme yes, as the SC confirmed, the issue was relevant but Westminster had the final say.
No SNP majority anywhere and the issue becomes irrelevant with Westminster still having the final say
When quite consistently, 45% of Scots say they want out, that is far from being irrelevant. It doesn't take much to turn that number into a majority.
Yes it is irrelevant, indeed 99% of Scots for independence would be irrelevant unless the SNP or SNP and Greens had a majority at Holyrood and there was an SNP majority of Scottish MPs
If 99% of Scots wanted independence, they would get it. If 50% + of Scots want independence, consistently, they will get it, because there is no appetite to hold Scotland in the Union at gunpoint.
@HYUFD’s comments show that there are some who would hold Scotland in the Union at gunpoint.
In a world where Putin has invaded and captured much of Ukraine, China threatens Taiwan and Spain refused Catalonia even 1 independence referendum despite a nationalist majority there, Scottish nationalists have got off pretty lightly from Westminster
On the trans - Rosie Duffield subthread running here today - @FrankBooth , @Northern_Al , @Taz, @Cyclefree maybe others, there was an interesting interview on Woman's Hour * of all places this week - with Professor Jo Phoenix who has been exonerated by an Employment Tribunal after:
Emma speaks to the academic Professor Jo Phoenix who has won an unfair dismissal claim against the Open University after she was compared with “a racist uncle at the Christmas table” because of her gender-critical beliefs.
The Open University seem to be tying themselves in knots. Really interesting.
* Quite unusual I caught it these days - Womans Hour feels more to me like Mumsnet Distilled, but that may be me losing my patience as I age a little more.
Is Klopp the only unalloyed lefty you've given full support?
Yes, I said the other day, there's only one man I am more loyal and supportive of than David Cameron and it is Jürgen Klopp.
If you're worried about life without Klopp just remember what happened with Liverpool after Shankly left. They won a shedload.
How Bob Paisley has faded from general memory shows how achievement is less important than being a opinionated loudmouth as his predecessor Shankly and rival Clough both were.
If polls show a Unionist majority at Holyrood and Labour winning most seats in Scotland again, then polls on Scottish independence become completely irrelevant.
The Scottish government would then not even have a majority for indyref2 at Holyrood for Westminster to ignore. You could have 99% for independence in polls but without an SNP or SNP and Green pro independence majority at Holyrood and an SNP majority of Scottish MPs, who cares?
It isn't irrelevant. It literally sucks the life out of Scottish politics. Yer man Duguid is doing His Entire Campaign attacking the SNP. His last 2 leaflets entirely devoted to it. He tweeted yesterday knocking on doors and how people want him to stop the SNP.
Irrelevant? Your lack of knowledge on the subject. Sorry, *any* subject.
Yes it is irrelevant. We are a representative democracy not a direct democracy, if the SNP have no majority of MSPs or Scottish MPs their campaign for independence is completely irrelevant, exactly as it was even under the SNP minority government of 2007-2011 for example.
If I don't kowtow to your conformist left liberal ideological demands, tough
Independence ebbs and flows in Scotland and always has
However, it is far from irrelevant and you insult Scots by your arrogant attitude towards them
No I don't, if Scottish Nationalists feel insulted because they do not got appeased so be it, if they can't even get a majority for their parties going forward at Westminster or Holyrood they deserve to be ignored even more
Scots in general take a very poor view of an Englishman pontificating on their politics especially one as ignorant as you are of the Scottish people
When I first arrived in Lossiemouth in 1962 and met my future wife's family, it was said he is Englishman but he is very nice
It wasn't exactly true as I am half Welsh
Indeed I expect @RochdalePioneers may have experienced similar sentiments
It is the average Scot switching from nationalist SNP to unionist Labour regardless of what I say, I opposed the SNP even when they had a clear majority
Yes, but as the polls show and the thread header independence remains a big issue in Scotland and your attitude is an excellent recruiting sergeant for independence
Just come back from my black pudden roll and we find HYUFD is basically denying that it is possible for Scots to be independent never mind how they vote. No matter how many MSPs and MPs for Scottish constituences are pro-indy, no matter what the opinion polls say.
Meanwhile, I expect HYUFD has a solar topi to burnish and a spinal pad to rinse and air off from this morning's session.
The Tories mistake is in removing the UK from the mainstream of European politics. If we’re going to be an influential but small country standing on the sidelines, then countries like Norway or Switzerland provide the role model, and the Scots’ argument that we might just as well be two small countries on the sidelines is just as credible as the status quo. The UK can only punch above its weight if we remain united and fully engage with our neighbours.
If polls show a Unionist majority at Holyrood and Labour winning most seats in Scotland again, then polls on Scottish independence become completely irrelevant.
The Scottish government would then not even have a majority for indyref2 at Holyrood for Westminster to ignore. You could have 99% for independence in polls but without an SNP or SNP and Green pro independence majority at Holyrood and an SNP majority of Scottish MPs, who cares?
I hesitate to 'crowbar in' something about Scottish indy on a thread about cricket, but can you list the times that you accepted that SNP having most Scottish seats, polls showing roughly half of the electorate supported indy and an indy majority at Holyrood were relevant?
Westminster is supreme yes, as the SC confirmed, the issue was relevant but Westminster had the final say.
No SNP majority anywhere and the issue becomes irrelevant with Westminster still having the final say
When quite consistently, 45% of Scots say they want out, that is far from being irrelevant. It doesn't take much to turn that number into a majority.
Yes it is irrelevant, indeed 99% of Scots for independence would be irrelevant unless the SNP or SNP and Greens had a majority at Holyrood and there was an SNP majority of Scottish MPs
If 99% of Scots wanted independence, they would get it. If 50% + of Scots want independence, consistently, they will get it, because there is no appetite to hold Scotland in the Union at gunpoint.
@HYUFD’s comments show that there are some who would hold Scotland in the Union at gunpoint.
In a world where Putin has invaded and captured much of Ukraine, China threatens Taiwan and Spain refused Catalonia even 1 independence referendum despite a nationalist majority there, Scottish nationalists have got off pretty lightly from Westminster
If polls show a Unionist majority at Holyrood and Labour winning most seats in Scotland again, then polls on Scottish independence become completely irrelevant.
The Scottish government would then not even have a majority for indyref2 at Holyrood for Westminster to ignore. You could have 99% for independence in polls but without an SNP or SNP and Green pro independence majority at Holyrood and an SNP majority of Scottish MPs, who cares?
I hesitate to 'crowbar in' something about Scottish indy on a thread about cricket, but can you list the times that you accepted that SNP having most Scottish seats, polls showing roughly half of the electorate supported indy and an indy majority at Holyrood were relevant?
Westminster is supreme yes, as the SC confirmed, the issue was relevant but Westminster had the final say.
No SNP majority anywhere and the issue becomes irrelevant with Westminster still having the final say
When quite consistently, 45% of Scots say they want out, that is far from being irrelevant. It doesn't take much to turn that number into a majority.
Yes it is irrelevant, indeed 99% of Scots for independence would be irrelevant unless the SNP or SNP and Greens had a majority at Holyrood and there was an SNP majority of Scottish MPs
If 99% of Scots wanted independence, they would get it. If 50% + of Scots want independence, consistently, they will get it, because there is no appetite to hold Scotland in the Union at gunpoint.
@HYUFD’s comments show that there are some who would hold Scotland in the Union at gunpoint.
In a world where Putin has invaded and captured much of Ukraine, China threatens Taiwan and Spain refused Catalonia even 1 independence referendum despite a nationalist majority there, Scottish nationalists have got off pretty lightly from Westminster
Our two giant aircraft carriers can’t be everywhere at once.
On topic! Support for Scottish Independence has been consistently between 45% and 50% for nearly ten years. It is unlikely to change significantly in either direction, as whether Scots support independence or the union is a more fundamental issue than mere party politics. It is only likely to move significantly if either the Scottish or UK governments act to boost Scots’ economic wealth.
Support for Scottish independence increased between 2007 and 2014 because an economically pragmatic SNP Scottish government made the majority of Scots feel wealthier and more optimistic. Since 2014, the actions of both the Scottish and UK governments have drained wealth and optimism from Scots. If the UK government want to reduce support for Independence, they need to make Scots feel richer and more optimistic within the Union. Similarly, if the Scottish government want to increase support for independence, they need to make Scots feel richer and more optimistic as a result of Scottish government policies.
Regarding the current divergence between support for independence and support for the SNP, independence supporters will vote for a party that is fighting for independence. Currently, the SNP are not, and therefore, independence supporters, seeing no party likely to progress the issue, will vote on other issues. Currently, the main issue is getting rid of the Tories, and Labour are seen as the best party to do this. Hence the divergence.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more.
Well clearly energy and internet are working or you wouldn't have been able to post that comment or for me to read it.
Likewise everything in my house seems to work and so does pretty much everything at other houses I go to and similarly at my workplace, at the shops and pubs and health club and sporting events I go to.
Even the public services I come into contact with seem to work okay.
So what exactly are the things that are broken ?
This country has problems, as it always has and as other countries do.
But a requirement of sorting them out is to be able to identify them.
And how can they be identified amid the hyperbole of 'everything is broken' and 'nothing is working'.
Centrist’s are saying everything is broken so that when Labour get in they can say everything’s fixed!
I read on X the other day people moaning about not being able to get a doctors appointment for two months or so. I’ve never had any trouble at all for myself or any of my family, just ring up first thing and you almost certainly get one that day. Are people making it up?
Is Klopp the only unalloyed lefty you've given full support?
Yes, I said the other day, there's only one man I am more loyal and supportive of than David Cameron and it is Jürgen Klopp.
If you're worried about life without Klopp just remember what happened with Liverpool after Shankly left. They won a shedload.
How Bob Paisley has faded from general memory shows how achievement is less important than being a opinionated loudmouth as his predecessor Shankly and rival Clough both were.
Also Kenny Dalglish - three league titles (including a double), two FA cups, in just five seasons
On a larger issue: In the last year or so, I have come to the unhappy conclusion that the probability of a nuclear war has increased, after falling for decades. It is still, let me hasten to add, low, probably less than 5 percent in my life time. (I turned 80 last year, but am relatively healthy for my age.) But the trend is wrong.
For which we can -- and should -- blame the obvious leaders, the Iranian Mullahs, "Czar" Putin, and North Korea's "King" Kim. But we should also blame the world leaders who have failed to do enough to counter them.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more.
Well clearly energy and internet are working or you wouldn't have been able to post that comment or for me to read it.
Likewise everything in my house seems to work and so does pretty much everything at other houses I go to and similarly at my workplace, at the shops and pubs and health club and sporting events I go to.
Even the public services I come into contact with seem to work okay.
So what exactly are the things that are broken ?
This country has problems, as it always has and as other countries do.
But a requirement of sorting them out is to be able to identify them.
And how can they be identified amid the hyperbole of 'everything is broken' and 'nothing is working'.
Put some trousers on over your underpants, leave your basement keyboard, and go outside….and talk to people while you are out there. Your online pizza and beer delivery can wait until later.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more.
Well clearly energy and internet are working or you wouldn't have been able to post that comment or for me to read it.
Likewise everything in my house seems to work and so does pretty much everything at other houses I go to and similarly at my workplace, at the shops and pubs and health club and sporting events I go to.
Even the public services I come into contact with seem to work okay.
So what exactly are the things that are broken ?
This country has problems, as it always has and as other countries do.
But a requirement of sorting them out is to be able to identify them.
And how can they be identified amid the hyperbole of 'everything is broken' and 'nothing is working'.
You’re right that it’s good to be more specific about such things. So… Waiting times for NHS services are markedly up, and some NHS services have simply vanished. Public health services are reduced and there’s a measles outbreak. Court cases have lengthy delays. The provision of council services (waste collection, libraries, etc.) has been reduced. Major infrastructure projects are getting cancelled or scaled back. Passport services have worsened. Prices have gone up more than wages across the board.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more.
Well clearly energy and internet are working or you wouldn't have been able to post that comment or for me to read it.
Likewise everything in my house seems to work and so does pretty much everything at other houses I go to and similarly at my workplace, at the shops and pubs and health club and sporting events I go to.
Even the public services I come into contact with seem to work okay.
So what exactly are the things that are broken ?
This country has problems, as it always has and as other countries do.
But a requirement of sorting them out is to be able to identify them.
And how can they be identified amid the hyperbole of 'everything is broken' and 'nothing is working'.
Centrist’s are saying everything is broken so that when Labour get in they can say everything’s fixed!
I read on X the other day people moaning about not being able to get a doctors appointment for two months or so. I’ve never had any trouble at all for myself or any of my family, just ring up first thing and you almost certainly get one that day. Are people making it up?
Centrists aren't particularly enthralled or aligned with Labour. We are just glad to be seeing the end of the Tories and an opportunity for much needed Tory renewal at some point down the line.
Perhaps millions of us all got together in secret and decided to lie about doctors waiting lists. Or perhaps it varies from place to place. Either is possible I suppose.
Looks like the Black Country Derby might be abandoned due to crowd trouble. Long time since we’ve seen scenes like this in football. Segregation compromised it appears.
Announcement the game won't be resumed until the fans sit back down. No incentive there for the Baggies to sit down as they are losing.
Need to announce both teams will be barred from all cup competitions for five years - unless the fans sit down.
Nah, just abandon the game now, kick them out of the cup and ban them for a couple of years. Don't plead with the fuckers, just bin it.
Yeah, no place for violence in football any more. Abandon the fixture with both sides eliminated, and a fine of double the revenue forgone by the team that gets a bye to the next round, one for the team and one for the FA.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more.
Well clearly energy and internet are working or you wouldn't have been able to post that comment or for me to read it.
Likewise everything in my house seems to work and so does pretty much everything at other houses I go to and similarly at my workplace, at the shops and pubs and health club and sporting events I go to.
Even the public services I come into contact with seem to work okay.
So what exactly are the things that are broken ?
This country has problems, as it always has and as other countries do.
But a requirement of sorting them out is to be able to identify them.
And how can they be identified amid the hyperbole of 'everything is broken' and 'nothing is working'.
Centrist’s are saying everything is broken so that when Labour get in they can say everything’s fixed!
I read on X the other day people moaning about not being able to get a doctors appointment for two months or so. I’ve never had any trouble at all for myself or any of my family, just ring up first thing and you almost certainly get one that day. Are people making it up?
GPs range from appalling to excellent. My GP is very efficient and forward looking. In a neighbouring practise, the GP vanished during COVID and has basically refused to resume face to face appointments, it seems.
In some parts of London, there are no GP places available. That is, you can’t get on a GP list.
Then people wonder why A&E gets used as a GP service.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
Choosing sides in the woke wars is what the protagonists on both sides want, and what should be resisted.
There are silly views and examples on both extremes, but the vast majority live without it impacting their life and using sensible judgement and basic politeness. That is the only sane place to be.
But Wokeness does impact all their lives, in myriad ways, it’s just that many don’t realise yet. But they will
It certainly impacts parents when their 12 year old kids come home from school and announce they are “non binary” and want to take puberty suppressing drugs
In a way it is like public attitudes to legal migration. It is not that high yet on the list of public concerns, albeit rising. But that is because most people have no idea of the scale of legal migration - ie that we have taken 1.3 MILLION people in two years, an absolutely astounding and historically unprecedented number
But they are slowly beginning to wake up - some people intuitively sense a change, without quite knowing why
Someone flagged this
Isn’t the PB rule - as laid down by @rcs1000 - that you can only flag remarks that are obvious trolling or in some way abusive?
Given that my comment is neither of these things, I presume the flagger will now be banned, or yellow carded?
I do this because PB’s puritan midwit lefties are constantly asking for me to be banned, so I want to see what it feels like
Looks like the Black Country Derby might be abandoned due to crowd trouble. Long time since we’ve seen scenes like this in football. Segregation compromised it appears.
Announcement the game won't be resumed until the fans sit back down. No incentive there for the Baggies to sit down as they are losing.
Need to announce both teams will be barred from all cup competitions for five years - unless the fans sit down.
Nah, just abandon the game now, kick them out of the cup and ban them for a couple of years. Don't plead with the fuckers, just bin it.
Yeah, no place for violence in football any more. Abandon the fixture with both sides eliminated, and a fine of double the revenue forgone by the team that gets a bye to the next round, one for the team and one for the FA.
Was pleasantly surprised there was no pitch invasion at the end.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more.
Well clearly energy and internet are working or you wouldn't have been able to post that comment or for me to read it.
Likewise everything in my house seems to work and so does pretty much everything at other houses I go to and similarly at my workplace, at the shops and pubs and health club and sporting events I go to.
Even the public services I come into contact with seem to work okay.
So what exactly are the things that are broken ?
This country has problems, as it always has and as other countries do.
But a requirement of sorting them out is to be able to identify them.
And how can they be identified amid the hyperbole of 'everything is broken' and 'nothing is working'.
Discretionary council spending like youth services tend to be the worst hit. Then mandatory council services like social care and housing support. Then the health and education sectors in regions where recruitment is difficult.
A lot of people don't use any of those for large parts of their lives but they are very much part of the social fabric.
On topic: As an outsider, I observe that Scots, like Americans, don't seem to much like any of the party leaders. Is this because their party leaders are all unlikeable, the party leaders have failed, some combination, or it depends on which leader you are discussing?
Possibly related: Are Scots, like Americans, down on most of their institutions, as well as their leaders?
In general no. In Scotland the consensus suffocates. There's little of the social warfare that divides England, let alone America. Which is nice on the whole. The downside is no challenge to mediocrity, and sometimes worse than that.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more.
Well clearly energy and internet are working or you wouldn't have been able to post that comment or for me to read it.
Likewise everything in my house seems to work and so does pretty much everything at other houses I go to and similarly at my workplace, at the shops and pubs and health club and sporting events I go to.
Even the public services I come into contact with seem to work okay.
So what exactly are the things that are broken ?
This country has problems, as it always has and as other countries do.
But a requirement of sorting them out is to be able to identify them.
And how can they be identified amid the hyperbole of 'everything is broken' and 'nothing is working'.
Centrist’s are saying everything is broken so that when Labour get in they can say everything’s fixed!
I read on X the other day people moaning about not being able to get a doctors appointment for two months or so. I’ve never had any trouble at all for myself or any of my family, just ring up first thing and you almost certainly get one that day. Are people making it up?
GPs range from appalling to excellent. My GP is very efficient and forward looking. In a neighbouring practise, the GP vanished during COVID and has basically refused to resume face to face appointments, it seems.
In some parts of London, there are no GP places available. That is, you can’t get on a GP list.
Then people wonder why A&E gets used as a GP service.
But if you have a GP, how can the wait for an appointment be months? I’ve lived in lots of different areas down the years, inside and outside of London, & never known a time when you couldn’t phone up at opening time & get one that day, at worst tomorrow
I’ve had two operations in the last 18 months, both done within a day of diagnosis. Admittedly these were emergency eye ops, so there is a specialist hospital
On the trans - Rosie Duffield subthread running here today - @FrankBooth , @Northern_Al , @Taz, @Cyclefree maybe others, there was an interesting interview on Woman's Hour * of all places this week - with Professor Jo Phoenix who has been exonerated by an Employment Tribunal after:
Emma speaks to the academic Professor Jo Phoenix who has won an unfair dismissal claim against the Open University after she was compared with “a racist uncle at the Christmas table” because of her gender-critical beliefs.
The Open University seem to be tying themselves in knots. Really interesting.
* Quite unusual I caught it these days - Womans Hour feels more to me like Mumsnet Distilled, but that may be me losing my patience as I age a little more.
There are three judgments that are well worth reading: -
1. The Phoenix / OU one: it is not that Phoenix was exonerated. Rather she won her claim for constructive dismissal / harassment. There will have to be a further hearing at which the level of damages will be assessed. The OU is currently facing two other similar claims before Employment Tribunals.
2. The Rachel Meade judgment - she won her claim against not only her employer, Westminster Council, but also the regulator - Social Work England. It is one which employers and professional regulators should take care to read and understand. Again there is to be a separate hearing next month to assess damages.
3. The Casserly case - brought under the Malicious Communications Act 1988. This is important because the Lady Chief Justice has ruled that: "The law does not require courtesy. It is trite law that speech does not lose protection just because the information or ideas that it conveys are offensive, disturbing or even shocking." All acts which seek to regulate speech are subject to the ECHR's requirements on freedom of expression. This is in line with the Court of Appeal's ruling in the Miller v College of Policing case a few years back.
It is also worth following the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre case which is currently being taken to an Employment Tribunal by one of its ex-employees. The barrister acting for the employee is the same one who acted for Ms Meade (and a friend of mine).
A number of employers are getting into trouble because they are not bothering to get proper legal advice from equality lawyers who really understand what the relevant legislation and cases say. There is no excuse for this.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more.
Well clearly energy and internet are working or you wouldn't have been able to post that comment or for me to read it.
Likewise everything in my house seems to work and so does pretty much everything at other houses I go to and similarly at my workplace, at the shops and pubs and health club and sporting events I go to.
Even the public services I come into contact with seem to work okay.
So what exactly are the things that are broken ?
This country has problems, as it always has and as other countries do.
But a requirement of sorting them out is to be able to identify them.
And how can they be identified amid the hyperbole of 'everything is broken' and 'nothing is working'.
Centrist’s are saying everything is broken so that when Labour get in they can say everything’s fixed!
I read on X the other day people moaning about not being able to get a doctors appointment for two months or so. I’ve never had any trouble at all for myself or any of my family, just ring up first thing and you almost certainly get one that day. Are people making it up?
GPs range from appalling to excellent. My GP is very efficient and forward looking. In a neighbouring practise, the GP vanished during COVID and has basically refused to resume face to face appointments, it seems.
In some parts of London, there are no GP places available. That is, you can’t get on a GP list.
Then people wonder why A&E gets used as a GP service.
Which is what I'd expect if the national system is struggling. It won't degrade uniformly everywhere. There will be places where it remains basically fine, and others (the places where it's hard to recruit) where it will all but fall over.
There's a threshold where gentle decay becomes sudden very quickly.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more.
Well clearly energy and internet are working or you wouldn't have been able to post that comment or for me to read it.
Likewise everything in my house seems to work and so does pretty much everything at other houses I go to and similarly at my workplace, at the shops and pubs and health club and sporting events I go to.
Even the public services I come into contact with seem to work okay.
So what exactly are the things that are broken ?
This country has problems, as it always has and as other countries do.
But a requirement of sorting them out is to be able to identify them.
And how can they be identified amid the hyperbole of 'everything is broken' and 'nothing is working'.
Centrist’s are saying everything is broken so that when Labour get in they can say everything’s fixed!
I read on X the other day people moaning about not being able to get a doctors appointment for two months or so. I’ve never had any trouble at all for myself or any of my family, just ring up first thing and you almost certainly get one that day. Are people making it up?
Centrists aren't particularly enthralled or aligned with Labour. We are just glad to be seeing the end of the Tories and an opportunity for much needed Tory renewal at some point down the line.
Perhaps millions of us all got together in secret and decided to lie about doctors waiting lists. Or perhaps it varies from place to place. Either is possible I suppose.
Millions of people are probably exaggerating problems because their team aren’t in charge
If polls show a Unionist majority at Holyrood and Labour winning most seats in Scotland again, then polls on Scottish independence become completely irrelevant.
The Scottish government would then not even have a majority for indyref2 at Holyrood for Westminster to ignore. You could have 99% for independence in polls but without an SNP or SNP and Green pro independence majority at Holyrood and an SNP majority of Scottish MPs, who cares?
I hesitate to 'crowbar in' something about Scottish indy on a thread about cricket, but can you list the times that you accepted that SNP having most Scottish seats, polls showing roughly half of the electorate supported indy and an indy majority at Holyrood were relevant?
Westminster is supreme yes, as the SC confirmed, the issue was relevant but Westminster had the final say.
No SNP majority anywhere and the issue becomes irrelevant with Westminster still having the final say
When quite consistently, 45% of Scots say they want out, that is far from being irrelevant. It doesn't take much to turn that number into a majority.
Yes it is irrelevant, indeed 99% of Scots for independence would be irrelevant unless the SNP or SNP and Greens had a majority at Holyrood and there was an SNP majority of Scottish MPs
If 99% of Scots wanted independence, they would get it. If 50% + of Scots want independence, consistently, they will get it, because there is no appetite to hold Scotland in the Union at gunpoint.
@HYUFD’s comments show that there are some who would hold Scotland in the Union at gunpoint.
In a world where Putin has invaded and captured much of Ukraine, China threatens Taiwan and Spain refused Catalonia even 1 independence referendum despite a nationalist majority there, Scottish nationalists have got off pretty lightly from Westminster
I thought you didn't approve of Hispanophone governments holding territory where the locals didn't want them. You wanted to start nuclear wars over Gib and the Falklands.
They are territories of a foreign power, us, not internal parts of Spain
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
What’s new. Areas like this have been on their own and left to wither for decades now anyway. Treated with barely disguised contempt by politicians across all parties.
It was a major driver of the leave vote in these areas. Economic boom post crash. What economic boom. Areas like these never enjoyed it.
Had prosperity been spread more evenly we would have never voted leave. Still, we did, and remainers need to get over it.
The Remanian independence argument strikes me as being the sort of argument a toddler uses: ‘if we can’t have what I want, I’m taking my toys and going home’
In that sense, it's rather similar to Brexit. Both share a similar logic and destructiveness.
Remainia is a threat to break the demos because they lost the vote
That's nonsense. I know of no one who wants only Remania (quite a large archipelago now) to Rejoin, indeed one reason to Rejoin as a United Kingdom is to stabilise the unity of the country by resolving Scottish and Northern Irish grievances with Brexit.
There is of course schadenfreude for steel-workers, fishermen, farmers and others who voted Brexit and now find that far from bettering their lives it has made their situation worse. We told you so.
In the real world I’ve never met anyone who has suggested it either!
Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as I would have hoped would be obvious.
In reality, Barnsley is lovely. The village near Cirencester, that is. With the posh gastropub. I'm equally fond of Bradford, which has some smashing waterside cafes and is just a short bike ride along the Kennet & Avon towpath from Bath.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more.
Well clearly energy and internet are working or you wouldn't have been able to post that comment or for me to read it.
Likewise everything in my house seems to work and so does pretty much everything at other houses I go to and similarly at my workplace, at the shops and pubs and health club and sporting events I go to.
Even the public services I come into contact with seem to work okay.
So what exactly are the things that are broken ?
This country has problems, as it always has and as other countries do.
But a requirement of sorting them out is to be able to identify them.
And how can they be identified amid the hyperbole of 'everything is broken' and 'nothing is working'.
Centrist’s are saying everything is broken so that when Labour get in they can say everything’s fixed!
I read on X the other day people moaning about not being able to get a doctors appointment for two months or so. I’ve never had any trouble at all for myself or any of my family, just ring up first thing and you almost certainly get one that day. Are people making it up?
GPs range from appalling to excellent. My GP is very efficient and forward looking. In a neighbouring practise, the GP vanished during COVID and has basically refused to resume face to face appointments, it seems.
In some parts of London, there are no GP places available. That is, you can’t get on a GP list.
Then people wonder why A&E gets used as a GP service.
But if you have a GP, how can the wait for an appointment be months? I’ve lived in lots of different areas down the years, inside and outside of London, & never known a time when you couldn’t phone up at opening time & get one that day, at worst tomorrow
I’ve had two operations in the last 18 months, both done within a day of diagnosis. Admittedly these were emergency eye ops, so there is a specialist hospital
I suspect you massively overestimate how many people feel they have a team anymore.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more.
Well clearly energy and internet are working or you wouldn't have been able to post that comment or for me to read it.
Likewise everything in my house seems to work and so does pretty much everything at other houses I go to and similarly at my workplace, at the shops and pubs and health club and sporting events I go to.
Even the public services I come into contact with seem to work okay.
So what exactly are the things that are broken ?
This country has problems, as it always has and as other countries do.
But a requirement of sorting them out is to be able to identify them.
And how can they be identified amid the hyperbole of 'everything is broken' and 'nothing is working'.
Given Ukraine manage it despite being under constant aerial bombardment, I tend to think the bar for "the country isn't working" should be somewhere above "has a functioning power grid".
It isn't difficult unless you are too ideologically stubborn, myopic, or stupid to see it.
The basic promise of society that's been broken for many is that if you worked hard, worked your way into a professional job or management, your real wage would go up a little bit over time and then after a few years you'd own your own home.
If you decided to have children that would have its difficulties but wouldn't be so ruinously, and transformatively expensive. If you needed to use public transport regularly it would be reliable and regular enough to make it a practical option. If you got ill or were injured then the NHS might not be perfect, but would see you right enough fairly promptly. Your local councils would also provide some leisure and community services that helped make life pleasant without having to spend an arm and a leg.
All of those things are either broken or breaking now for many (not all, but enough - and even those doing well enough to opt out can feel the strain) people of working age without independent family wealth.
To top it all off the party you view as responsible having been in power during that period of decline was and is entirely uninterested in acknowledging, apologising, and fixing that because it is too busy insulting you over your values or the fact you think Brexit's a bit of a rubbish idea actually.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more.
Well clearly energy and internet are working or you wouldn't have been able to post that comment or for me to read it.
Likewise everything in my house seems to work and so does pretty much everything at other houses I go to and similarly at my workplace, at the shops and pubs and health club and sporting events I go to.
Even the public services I come into contact with seem to work okay.
So what exactly are the things that are broken ?
This country has problems, as it always has and as other countries do.
But a requirement of sorting them out is to be able to identify them.
And how can they be identified amid the hyperbole of 'everything is broken' and 'nothing is working'.
Put some trousers on over your underpants, leave your basement keyboard, and go outside….and talk to people while you are out there. Your online pizza and beer delivery can wait until later.
So you cannot actually give an example of what's 'broken'.
I go to work, I go to the shops, I see people, I do things.
And do you know what people talk about.
They talk about sport, about TV, about their holidays, about what their kids are doing.
Do you know who complains about 'everything is broken' and 'nothing works' ?
People who spend too much time talking about politics on fringe websites.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more.
Well clearly energy and internet are working or you wouldn't have been able to post that comment or for me to read it.
Likewise everything in my house seems to work and so does pretty much everything at other houses I go to and similarly at my workplace, at the shops and pubs and health club and sporting events I go to.
Even the public services I come into contact with seem to work okay.
So what exactly are the things that are broken ?
This country has problems, as it always has and as other countries do.
But a requirement of sorting them out is to be able to identify them.
And how can they be identified amid the hyperbole of 'everything is broken' and 'nothing is working'.
Discretionary council spending like youth services tend to be the worst hit. Then mandatory council services like social care and housing support. Then the health and education sectors in regions where recruitment is difficult.
A lot of people don't use any of those for large parts of their lives but they are very much part of the social fabric.
All areas where there are problems.
But there's differences between problems and being broken.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more.
Well clearly energy and internet are working or you wouldn't have been able to post that comment or for me to read it.
Likewise everything in my house seems to work and so does pretty much everything at other houses I go to and similarly at my workplace, at the shops and pubs and health club and sporting events I go to.
Even the public services I come into contact with seem to work okay.
So what exactly are the things that are broken ?
This country has problems, as it always has and as other countries do.
But a requirement of sorting them out is to be able to identify them.
And how can they be identified amid the hyperbole of 'everything is broken' and 'nothing is working'.
Discretionary council spending like youth services tend to be the worst hit. Then mandatory council services like social care and housing support. Then the health and education sectors in regions where recruitment is difficult.
A lot of people don't use any of those for large parts of their lives but they are very much part of the social fabric.
All areas where there are problems.
But there's differences between problems and being broken.
Problems nationally, broken locally, sounds about the right language to me but words like those are very much in the eye of the beholder.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more.
Well clearly energy and internet are working or you wouldn't have been able to post that comment or for me to read it.
Likewise everything in my house seems to work and so does pretty much everything at other houses I go to and similarly at my workplace, at the shops and pubs and health club and sporting events I go to.
Even the public services I come into contact with seem to work okay.
So what exactly are the things that are broken ?
This country has problems, as it always has and as other countries do.
But a requirement of sorting them out is to be able to identify them.
And how can they be identified amid the hyperbole of 'everything is broken' and 'nothing is working'.
Put some trousers on over your underpants, leave your basement keyboard, and go outside….and talk to people while you are out there. Your online pizza and beer delivery can wait until later.
So you cannot actually give an example of what's 'broken'.
I go to work, I go to the shops, I see people, I do things.
And do you know what people talk about.
They talk about sport, about TV, about their holidays, about what their kids are doing.
Do you know who complains about 'everything is broken' and 'nothing works' ?
People who spend too much time talking about politics on fringe websites.
Other PB’ers have already nailed your complacent blindness, comprehensively.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more.
Well clearly energy and internet are working or you wouldn't have been able to post that comment or for me to read it.
Likewise everything in my house seems to work and so does pretty much everything at other houses I go to and similarly at my workplace, at the shops and pubs and health club and sporting events I go to.
Even the public services I come into contact with seem to work okay.
So what exactly are the things that are broken ?
This country has problems, as it always has and as other countries do.
But a requirement of sorting them out is to be able to identify them.
And how can they be identified amid the hyperbole of 'everything is broken' and 'nothing is working'.
You’re right that it’s good to be more specific about such things. So… Waiting times for NHS services are markedly up, and some NHS services have simply vanished. Public health services are reduced and there’s a measles outbreak. Court cases have lengthy delays. The provision of council services (waste collection, libraries, etc.) has been reduced. Major infrastructure projects are getting cancelled or scaled back. Passport services have worsened. Prices have gone up more than wages across the board.
Thanks.
Problems that need to investigated and if possible resolved.
How that is to be done I don't know but then its not my job to know.
Although you're wrong in thinking that prices have gone up more than wages across the board - my wages have gone up more and so have those of many people.
There are other problems - housing affordability in southern England and student debt for examples.
And if I had to say one thing that is 'broken' that would be major infrastructure investments. Not for a lack of money but because the system itself does not work.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more.
Well clearly energy and internet are working or you wouldn't have been able to post that comment or for me to read it.
Likewise everything in my house seems to work and so does pretty much everything at other houses I go to and similarly at my workplace, at the shops and pubs and health club and sporting events I go to.
Even the public services I come into contact with seem to work okay.
So what exactly are the things that are broken ?
This country has problems, as it always has and as other countries do.
But a requirement of sorting them out is to be able to identify them.
And how can they be identified amid the hyperbole of 'everything is broken' and 'nothing is working'.
Put some trousers on over your underpants, leave your basement keyboard, and go outside….and talk to people while you are out there. Your online pizza and beer delivery can wait until later.
So you cannot actually give an example of what's 'broken'.
I go to work, I go to the shops, I see people, I do things.
And do you know what people talk about.
They talk about sport, about TV, about their holidays, about what their kids are doing.
Do you know who complains about 'everything is broken' and 'nothing works' ?
People who spend too much time talking about politics on fringe websites.
Other PB’ers have already nailed your complacent blindness, comprehensively.
My realty based attitude to problems.
Identify a problem, find what causes it and try to resolve it.
A more effective attitude than bewailing that 'everything is broken'.
Now I have to go to the supermarket - I suspect I will find it isn't broken.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more.
Well clearly energy and internet are working or you wouldn't have been able to post that comment or for me to read it.
Likewise everything in my house seems to work and so does pretty much everything at other houses I go to and similarly at my workplace, at the shops and pubs and health club and sporting events I go to.
Even the public services I come into contact with seem to work okay.
So what exactly are the things that are broken ?
This country has problems, as it always has and as other countries do.
But a requirement of sorting them out is to be able to identify them.
And how can they be identified amid the hyperbole of 'everything is broken' and 'nothing is working'.
Put some trousers on over your underpants, leave your basement keyboard, and go outside….and talk to people while you are out there. Your online pizza and beer delivery can wait until later.
So you cannot actually give an example of what's 'broken'.
I go to work, I go to the shops, I see people, I do things.
And do you know what people talk about.
They talk about sport, about TV, about their holidays, about what their kids are doing.
Do you know who complains about 'everything is broken' and 'nothing works' ?
People who spend too much time talking about politics on fringe websites.
Other PB’ers have already nailed your complacent blindness, comprehensively.
My realty based attitude to problems.
Identify a problem, find what causes it and try to resolve it.
A more effective attitude than bewailing that 'everything is broken'.
Now I have to go to the supermarket - I suspect I will find it isn't broken.
Most probably not, so you’ll be able to stay inside your bubble for a while longer, then.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't,
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
As a potential voter the Govt has blown it with, I also think those are a couple of very interesting posts.
I became somewhat politically and in conscious at an early age - about late-70s early-Thatcher. Partly through going to sleep with the radio playing from the age of about 11 (remember Radio Newsreel?), including World Service and sometimes even the foreign service of Radio Moscow.
One very formative experience for me was difficulty in getting to school because Arthur Scargill sent his mob of perhaps 1000-2000 flying thugs down the motorway to intimidate Nottinghamshire workers at Badminton Colliery. I suggest subsequent events including Scargill's campaign to make the NUM subsidise his lifestyle of the rich, and the looting of NUM Funds by a certain MP justify that evaluation (no names for OGH's sake), confirm that he was always a bad 'un - yet I find a belief in some that that behaviour was somehow OK.
I am always reluctant to vote for a party with TU affiliation, because imo politically-driven TUs in the UK are poisonous - and I can point at plenty of examples even after the TU reforms we have had, starting with McClusky and his cabal. I think I have perhaps only voted for Labour twice since - eg Gloria de Piero in 2015. But then much of the time I have only been offered a clown and a deadbeat as candidates, in Dennis Skinner and Geoff Hoon.
I don't buy the thing about "younger generations being more socially conscious" - I think that is a self-delusion that does not stand the test of history, and varies by area of society; I think it's fair to call society more individualistic now, and I am not sure either about "more environmentally conscious". It was the post-hippy or hippy-turned-practical generation that did the hard yards on much of that, and every UK Govt since 1990 that has been seriously building foundations for a greener future. Until Sunak & the current Tory leadership started burning it all down to save his butt.
Nor do I buy the thing about penalising working people to support pensioners, since pensioners have not had significant support - but perhaps I know more pensioners living on the basic pension than others here.
Current Tories? I am at the point of saying that I will never again vote Conservative, which is what I will tell Lee Anderson or his representative should they knock on my door. Translated into practice that is likely to mean 15-20 years (ie current generation of Tories), which is how long that type of resolution tends to last with me.
My reasons for that stance are their lost moral compass plus inability to govern competently in a post-Brexit environment. I'm still happy to support Brexit, as my main motivation is being outside the horrors of EU politics. I'd support single market without being subsumed by the political structures.
So my vote is available for Labour next time, dependent on getting a sane candidate. None has been appointed for Ashfield yet.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more.
Well clearly energy and internet are working or you wouldn't have been able to post that comment or for me to read it.
Likewise everything in my house seems to work and so does pretty much everything at other houses I go to and similarly at my workplace, at the shops and pubs and health club and sporting events I go to.
Even the public services I come into contact with seem to work okay.
So what exactly are the things that are broken ?
This country has problems, as it always has and as other countries do.
But a requirement of sorting them out is to be able to identify them.
And how can they be identified amid the hyperbole of 'everything is broken' and 'nothing is working'.
Put some trousers on over your underpants, leave your basement keyboard, and go outside….and talk to people while you are out there. Your online pizza and beer delivery can wait until later.
So you cannot actually give an example of what's 'broken'.
I go to work, I go to the shops, I see people, I do things.
And do you know what people talk about.
They talk about sport, about TV, about their holidays, about what their kids are doing.
Do you know who complains about 'everything is broken' and 'nothing works' ?
People who spend too much time talking about politics on fringe websites.
Other PB’ers have already nailed your complacent blindness, comprehensively.
My realty based attitude to problems.
Identify a problem, find what causes it and try to resolve it.
A more effective attitude than bewailing that 'everything is broken'.
Now I have to go to the supermarket - I suspect I will find it isn't broken.
Just to be on the safe side, avoid Morrisons, Asda and Waitrose. All are looking either a little bit debt ridden or financially broken.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more.
Well clearly energy and internet are working or you wouldn't have been able to post that comment or for me to read it.
Likewise everything in my house seems to work and so does pretty much everything at other houses I go to and similarly at my workplace, at the shops and pubs and health club and sporting events I go to.
Even the public services I come into contact with seem to work okay.
So what exactly are the things that are broken ?
This country has problems, as it always has and as other countries do.
But a requirement of sorting them out is to be able to identify them.
And how can they be identified amid the hyperbole of 'everything is broken' and 'nothing is working'.
Put some trousers on over your underpants, leave your basement keyboard, and go outside….and talk to people while you are out there. Your online pizza and beer delivery can wait until later.
So you cannot actually give an example of what's 'broken'.
I go to work, I go to the shops, I see people, I do things.
And do you know what people talk about.
They talk about sport, about TV, about their holidays, about what their kids are doing.
Do you know who complains about 'everything is broken' and 'nothing works' ?
People who spend too much time talking about politics on fringe websites.
Other PB’ers have already nailed your complacent blindness, comprehensively.
My realty based attitude to problems.
Identify a problem, find what causes it and try to resolve it.
A more effective attitude than bewailing that 'everything is broken'.
Now I have to go to the supermarket - I suspect I will find it isn't broken.
Just to be on the safe side, avoid Morrisons, Asda and Waitrose. All are looking either a little bit debt ridden or financially broken.
Debt is fine as long as it can be serviced. Most of us have debt of one type or another.
There's an age limit for loss of office payments, apparently.
Why was she even on LK today, when she’s no longer an MP not a peer nor holds any political position of significance whatsoever?
I did not see Nadine Dorries on LK but would imagine she was there as a commentator on plots against Conservative Prime Ministers, as she has written a book on how Boris was ousted, and Liz Truss, to install Rishi and how Kemi's turn was next.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't, I think the issue of Scottish independence is seperate and distinct from the politicians making the case for it. When I was growing up in Scotland I was a unionist but if I had a vote now it would probably be for independence. It would be very difficult economically in the short to medium term but I think Scotland is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from the United Kingdom to achieve its long term potential.
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
Speaking as a sub-40 who remembers Major as a kid and Blair, I think that's close but not quite right. Economics is the killer, but would be survivable and reversible because it always is - there's no big ideological reason to not build houses or change the tax system to favour income more over wealth. You just have to be brave enough to stand up to those the party has been captured by who are against these things.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more.
Well clearly energy and internet are working or you wouldn't have been able to post that comment or for me to read it.
Likewise everything in my house seems to work and so does pretty much everything at other houses I go to and similarly at my workplace, at the shops and pubs and health club and sporting events I go to.
Even the public services I come into contact with seem to work okay.
So what exactly are the things that are broken ?
This country has problems, as it always has and as other countries do.
But a requirement of sorting them out is to be able to identify them.
And how can they be identified amid the hyperbole of 'everything is broken' and 'nothing is working'.
Centrist’s are saying everything is broken so that when Labour get in they can say everything’s fixed!
I read on X the other day people moaning about not being able to get a doctors appointment for two months or so. I’ve never had any trouble at all for myself or any of my family, just ring up first thing and you almost certainly get one that day. Are people making it up?
GPs range from appalling to excellent. My GP is very efficient and forward looking. In a neighbouring practise, the GP vanished during COVID and has basically refused to resume face to face appointments, it seems.
In some parts of London, there are no GP places available. That is, you can’t get on a GP list.
Then people wonder why A&E gets used as a GP service.
Waiting in my GP's reception area last year, I saw a man come in and beg the reception staff and practice manager to be registered as a patient. It was embarrassing and pathetic. They turned him away. You hear the same on an even greater scale about dentists.
Is Klopp the only unalloyed lefty you've given full support?
Yes, I said the other day, there's only one man I am more loyal and supportive of than David Cameron and it is Jürgen Klopp.
If you're worried about life without Klopp just remember what happened with Liverpool after Shankly left. They won a shedload.
There's only one Stevie G. !
Alonso who?
I really don’t want them to appoint Stevie G - because I feel he’s not yet up to it as a top-level manager, and I’d be distraught to see him fail immediately at the club for whom he did so much.
Agreed on this. As someone who has never liked the SNP and still doesn't,
Given that it appears to be Groundhog Referendum Day on PB, Remainia is falling well short of where it could be as a country and needs to break free from Leavistan to achieve its long term potential.
Bye bye Barnsley and Bolsover, good luck on your own.
This is clear from some of the not so subtle messaging from Sadiq Khan. Labour's forthcoming victory will further embolden him and others of his persuasion.
Although to win a majority labour needs these areas as much as it needs the big cities.
I'm thinking more of what will happen after, rather than before, the election.
That housebuilding will fall even further behind immigration.
Isn't that the one area where Labour appear to be making a definite commitment?
The Tories made a similar commitment which evaporated after the Chesham and Amersham by election.
Difference is that C+A is a must win seat for the Conservatives, and core Nimby is pretty much core Conservative demographic.
Whereas Labour's core vote is fed up with overpriced flat shares and their winning Amersham is the blob of icing on the icing figurine on the icing on the cake.
And home owners have traditionally been more inclined to vote Tory so Labour have every incentive to talk the talk but not walk the walk.
There is increasing evidence that social values are forestalling the traditional shift to voting Conservative as people near their forties. The traditional economic reasons to vote Tory have disappeared for working age folk, as the Tories only care about featherbedding the retired vote.
I think too that by building around the cities that the Labour vote moving into more marginal suburban and commuter seats could well make the Labour vote more efficient and flip a lot of previously safe Shire seats.
We are dealing with a new political world, and new demographics.
Are we? In 2019 the Conservatives won most voters over 39, in 2005 and 2001 the Tories won only most voters over 55.
Given the Tories back gay marriage and don't want to ban abortion or make changing sex illegal social values are hardly a major issue.
Brexit maybe but then most voters over 47 voted for Brexit, not most voters over 77, so plenty of mileage in that yet for them. Indeed far more voters voted for Brexit than currently back the Tories
Past performance doesn't predict future performance, as any fule kno!
Polling for Tories (and Reform too if you add them in) is pisspoor below the age of 50 and you are doing less than zero about it.
Indeed, the problem for the Tories isn't that they are doing badly among the Under 50s, it's that they are doing catastrophically badly. Comically badly. They aren't just unpopular, to all intents and purposes, outside a few oddballs, those who expect to remain in the workforce for 20 years or more have stopped voting Tory almost altogether.
Sure, that should improve in opposition as general polling improves and they recalibrate - but to the level of health where previously won? They have been so bad for and elicit such anger among the Under 40s in particular that the shift maybe generational and permanent - a cohort which won't forgive or forget.
Plus, there are little signs the Tory party is capable of coming to terms with this and why they are despised. There's the odd noise from outsiders about housebuilding. Which would be welcome, but one thing among many, and something Labour should find it much easier to outbid them on. Similar for infrastructure.
To take Brexit as an example. It's not going to define how opponents (the vast majority of the young as they were in 2016) vote forever or even now. But it's going to be very difficult to persuade people to give you a chance if they believe your signature achievement, the one the Conservative Party now defines itself by, was a terrible error that created chaos and made them poorer.
"Don't let them back in or they'll ruin Britain like they did last time" is going to be a powerful and persuasive argument to be used against the Tories for a very long time. And one that simple demographics will cement, given those who have been infuriated by and made poorer by the Tories are younger than those they have protected and enriched.
I think there are two different things going on and it is a mistake to conflate them
The cohort that is 40-50 were becoming politically aware during the fag-end of Major’s government /Blair’s prime. That fixed their political views (non-Tory) in the way that the Winter of Discontent did and, possibly Brexit will (too early to say)
Sub-40 I think it’s more about economics - this cohort don’t have an economic stake (housing) and so less to conserve plus social attitudes have evolved fast and the Tories have not (in part) kept up.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
That’s a very good post. Especially the overview of why this government has blown it with so many voters.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
As a potential voter the Govt has blown it with, I also think those are a couple of very interesting posts.
I became somewhat politically and in conscious at an early age - about late-70s early-Thatcher. Partly through going to sleep with the radio playing from the age of about 11 (remember Radio Newsreel?), including World Service and sometimes even the foreign service of Radio Moscow.
.
How bizarre. I was also a teenage World Service and closet Radio Moscow evening listener, as well as LBC back when it was a serious news station. I remember waiting for ‘Moscow Nights’ to come on, before the news. Also radio Albania…” Ici Terana”. Very subversive in sleepy Sevenoaks, although doubtless pales into insignificance compared to NickexMP out laying charges at nighttime along Home Counties railway lines during the same period.
There is a weird inverse relationship - which only appears during major political shifts in Scotland - between support for Indy and support for the SNP
The psychology is this: both are seen as proxies for patriotism. Most Scots are patriotic
So if you don’t do one you’d better do the other, if you’re a patriotic Scot. We saw this after the NO vote in 2014. Support for the Nats might have been expected to collapse; instead it surged and remained incredibly firm and high for nearly a decade
That was patriotic Scots feeling a bit guilty about voting NO and switching to the SNP to prove their Tartan credentials
Now the SNP are falling so those same patriotic Scots express their aspiration for Indy in harmless polls by saying YES
My impression was that the Tory response to the 2014 result played straight into the SNP’s hands. Brexit also seems to have solidified support for independence, if not the SNP.
GOP Sen. Lankford calls out Rs who oppose border deal, noting they demanded it for $$. “Now it’s interesting a few months later, when we’re finally getting to the end they’re like ‘Oh just kidding, I actually don’t want a change in law because it’s a presidential election year.’” https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1751669017268408378
Comments
Fighting in the stands, players off the field.
No chance of restart as fans fight each other
They simply couldn’t have done it without me.
But of course it's not just that. Otherwise those who had done well for themselves would still vote Tory. And I can tell you they very much aren't. I have friends who own places in London on v high salaries who are more anti-Tory than I am.
It's a deadly combination of the economics, public services seen as declining, Brexit being seen as a bad move, being reactionary on social issues (people often find 'wokeness' tiresome but asked to choose between that and the likes of Lee Anderson, there's only one winner), and generally being a bit of a joke with the chaos. It's become axiomatic that this has been a terrible government in multiple ways. Some of which the Tories will never have a mea culpa for or a reckoning with as they have become part of Tory dogma and identity.
Obviously there are slight differences as you go through age groups - the very young are more socially conscious but arguably more entrepreneurial (or venal) for instance. But in general the point is simple. It's cohorts that have spent most of their working lives under these last few Tory governments, and view them as having repeatedly made decisions that now regard as harmful to them and terrible for the country - even if they didn't view them as that initially.
That's going to be a very difficult perception to reverse. Especially when you're precluded from making the biggest gestures that would show you're a changed party.
Albeit the chances of there being no SNP majority in Scotland if independence support was at 99% is near zero but it does show the point is not what polls say if that is not backed up by nationalist majorities at Holyrood and amongst Scottish MPs
The Tories don't need under 40s to win, though getting some more 25-40 year olds on the housing ladder would help
Need to announce both teams will be barred from all cup competitions for five years - unless the fans sit down.
Having spent the last three years being much too nonchalant about the threat of him recapturing the White House, British politicians and their counterparts elsewhere in Europe can no longer deny to themselves that a Trump second coming is terrifyingly possible.
The Maga branch of the Tory party, whose precinct captains are Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, has been waving flags for Trump. The prime minister has maintained a diplomatic silence. This suggests he grasps that his party’s already dismal prospects won’t be enhanced by hugging close to a figure who is toxic to the great majority of British voters. Sir Keir Starmer will be wary of saying anything to provoke Trump, but in the past he hasn’t disguised his preference for a Biden victory, and I am told the Labour leader is frustrated that he has yet to be invited to call on the White House.
People close to the prime minister and within the Labour leader’s circle claim they would find a way to “handle” Trump and “make it work”. That is stupendously naive and conceited. It sounds like someone who has only ever had a pet rabbit telling you they know how to control an American bully XL.
The destruction of the trans-Atlantic bridge would further underline the strategic folly of Brexit. European leaders would look supremely foolish for failing to fulfil the pledges they made to improve military capabilities in the wake of Russia’s brutal invasion. There would be a big incentive on both sides to improve UK-EU relations and hurry efforts to agree a pan-European security pact. Even if the worst doesn’t happen this time, there’s no saying that America won’t elect a Trump-like figure in the future. It is beyond time that Europe stopped leaving so much of the responsibility for its defence to America and devoted the necessary resources to ensuring the security of its own continent.
And if the worst does happen, if he recaptures the White House, I’d be very wary of anyone who tells you not to lose too much sleep over it. We should be under no illusions that the so-called “special relationship” will protect Britain from the Trump tempest. He will be a clear and present danger to the UK’s vital interests in a way no previous US president has ever been.
It's really striking how it's panned out over the last few years. The liberalising reforms (to gender recognition) that blew up in Scotland and are now considered so risky to Labour's electoral prospects in England that the party has decided not to mention them, let alone pursue them, were not so long ago a matter of consensus or close to it; put forward by a Conservative government, agreed to by most of the Opposition parties, supported by the medical profession.
To go from that to where we are now (where any change on gender recognition is as likely to make it more restrictive as it is less) has been quite the turnaround. It's interesting to ponder why. I have theories, no doubt others do too. But this is another thing that's (potentially) unusual about this. You don't often see social reform going backwards. Paused for a time whilst opinion catches up, yes, but not into reverse. Yet it could be the case here. Trans rights stalled or going backwards? Time will tell.
Everyone can see that the country is broken; nothing works any more. Which is why the Tories’ talking about future tax cuts or abolishing IHT misses the target entirely. Especially after a decade when they’ve penalised those working, both rich and poor, to support the elderly and economically inactive.
The LibDems’ increasing obsession with what I regard as fringe social issues was a secondary factor behind my deciding no longer to be a member. But Casino’s Meldrew-tribute-act on here made me realise that, if it really has to be a binary choice (the sensible middle way of course being the best course of action), it is better to be on the right side of history rather than join Casino and his mini-me Leon in sticking up for the Neanderthals.
It is becoming hard to see what pitch the Tories can make in GE24 that won’t be met with guffaws of incredulity?
We will have to move all the indigenous people - the Scots - out of Scotland, and settle them somewhere else. Perhaps West Falklands, which they might like as it has a superior climate to their homeland and is also devoid of Glasgow, Dundee and Cumbernauld. We could grant them “West Falklands Citizenship” as an incentive
Then we turn most of Scotland into a National Park, to protect the local flora - moss - and fauna - midges, the rest of it will be reserved for the requisite military bases needed by British troops and ships to take on Jonny Slav
Meanwhile, I expect HYUFD has a solar topi to burnish and a spinal pad to rinse and air off from this morning's session.
There are silly views and examples on both extremes, but the vast majority live without it impacting their life and using sensible judgement and basic politeness. That is the only sane place to be.
Then I looked across the road and realised with a shock that I was standing right outside his house. There was a plaque on it (which I had not seen to that point)
How weird is that? Like a kind of ghost but good
JP2 is one of the few people I regard as an absolute unalloyed hero of the 20th century, or maybe any century. An outstanding figure. The more you read about his life the more impressive he becomes - not less, as is often the case
You live in a very simple world, my friend.
It certainly impacts parents when their 12 year old kids come home from school and announce they are “non binary” and want to take puberty suppressing drugs
In a way it is like public attitudes to legal migration. It is not that high yet on the list of public concerns, albeit rising. But that is because most people have no idea of the scale of legal migration - ie that we have taken 1.3 MILLION people in two years, an absolutely astounding and historically unprecedented number
But they are slowly beginning to wake up - some people intuitively sense a change, without quite knowing why
Possibly related: Are Scots, like Americans, down on most of their institutions, as well as their leaders?
Well clearly energy and internet are working or you wouldn't have been able to post that comment or for me to read it.
Likewise everything in my house seems to work and so does pretty much everything at other houses I go to and similarly at my workplace, at the shops and pubs and health club and sporting events I go to.
Even the public services I come into contact with seem to work okay.
So what exactly are the things that are broken ?
This country has problems, as it always has and as other countries do.
But a requirement of sorting them out is to be able to identify them.
And how can they be identified amid the hyperbole of 'everything is broken' and 'nothing is working'.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68122000
There's an age limit for loss of office payments, apparently.
https://x.com/timmyvoe240886/status/1751605575245312184?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Emma speaks to the academic Professor Jo Phoenix who has won an unfair dismissal claim against the Open University after she was compared with “a racist uncle at the Christmas table” because of her gender-critical beliefs.
The Open University seem to be tying themselves in knots. Really interesting.
Starts at 20:20 here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001vt3y
* Quite unusual I caught it these days - Womans Hour feels more to me like Mumsnet Distilled, but that may be me losing my patience as I age a little more.
Support for Scottish independence increased between 2007 and 2014 because an economically pragmatic SNP Scottish government made the majority of Scots feel wealthier and more optimistic. Since 2014, the actions of both the Scottish and UK governments have drained wealth and optimism from Scots. If the UK government want to reduce support for Independence, they need to make Scots feel richer and more optimistic within the Union. Similarly, if the Scottish government want to increase support for independence, they need to make Scots feel richer and more optimistic as a result of Scottish government policies.
Regarding the current divergence between support for independence and support for the SNP, independence supporters will vote for a party that is fighting for independence. Currently, the SNP are not, and therefore, independence supporters, seeing no party likely to progress the issue, will vote on other issues. Currently, the main issue is getting rid of the Tories, and Labour are seen as the best party to do this. Hence the divergence.
I read on X the other day people moaning about not being able to get a doctors appointment for two months or so. I’ve never had any trouble at all for myself or any of my family, just ring up first thing and you almost certainly get one that day. Are people making it up?
For which we can -- and should -- blame the obvious leaders, the Iranian Mullahs, "Czar" Putin, and North Korea's "King" Kim. But we should also blame the world leaders who have failed to do enough to counter them.
Perhaps millions of us all got together in secret and decided to lie about doctors waiting lists. Or perhaps it varies from place to place. Either is possible I suppose.
In some parts of London, there are no GP places available. That is, you can’t get on a GP list.
Then people wonder why A&E gets used as a GP service.
Isn’t the PB rule - as laid down by @rcs1000 - that you can only flag remarks that are obvious trolling or in some way abusive?
Given that my comment is neither of these things, I presume the flagger will now be banned, or yellow carded?
I do this because PB’s puritan midwit lefties are constantly asking for me to be banned, so I want to see what it feels like
A lot of people don't use any of those for large parts of their lives but they are very much part of the social fabric.
I’ve had two operations in the last 18 months, both done within a day of diagnosis. Admittedly these were emergency eye ops, so there is a specialist hospital
1. The Phoenix / OU one: it is not that Phoenix was exonerated. Rather she won her claim for constructive dismissal / harassment. There will have to be a further hearing at which the level of damages will be assessed. The OU is currently facing two other similar claims before Employment Tribunals.
2. The Rachel Meade judgment - she won her claim against not only her employer, Westminster Council, but also the regulator - Social Work England. It is one which employers and professional regulators should take care to read and understand. Again there is to be a separate hearing next month to assess damages.
3. The Casserly case - brought under the Malicious Communications Act 1988. This is important because the Lady Chief Justice has ruled that: "The law does not require courtesy. It is trite law that speech does not lose protection just because the information or ideas that it conveys are offensive, disturbing or even shocking." All acts which seek to regulate speech are subject to the ECHR's requirements on freedom of expression. This is in line with the Court of Appeal's ruling in the Miller v College of Policing case a few years back.
It is also worth following the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre case which is currently being taken to an Employment Tribunal by one of its ex-employees. The barrister acting for the employee is the same one who acted for Ms Meade (and a friend of mine).
A number of employers are getting into trouble because they are not bothering to get proper legal advice from equality lawyers who really understand what the relevant legislation and cases say. There is no excuse for this.
There's a threshold where gentle decay becomes sudden very quickly.
Away and polish your camp khazi.
In reality, Barnsley is lovely. The village near Cirencester, that is. With the posh gastropub. I'm equally fond of Bradford, which has some smashing waterside cafes and is just a short bike ride along the Kennet & Avon towpath from Bath.
It isn't difficult unless you are too ideologically stubborn, myopic, or stupid to see it.
The basic promise of society that's been broken for many is that if you worked hard, worked your way into a professional job or management, your real wage would go up a little bit over time and then after a few years you'd own your own home.
If you decided to have children that would have its difficulties but wouldn't be so ruinously, and transformatively expensive. If you needed to use public transport regularly it would be reliable and regular enough to make it a practical option. If you got ill or were injured then the NHS might not be perfect, but would see you right enough fairly promptly. Your local councils would also provide some leisure and community services that helped make life pleasant without having to spend an arm and a leg.
All of those things are either broken or breaking now for many (not all, but enough - and even those doing well enough to opt out can feel the strain) people of working age without independent family wealth.
To top it all off the party you view as responsible having been in power during that period of decline was and is entirely uninterested in acknowledging, apologising, and fixing that because it is too busy insulting you over your values or the fact you think Brexit's a bit of a rubbish idea actually.
I go to work, I go to the shops, I see people, I do things.
And do you know what people talk about.
They talk about sport, about TV, about their holidays, about what their kids are doing.
Do you know who complains about 'everything is broken' and 'nothing works' ?
People who spend too much time talking about politics on fringe websites.
But there's differences between problems and being broken.
Problems that need to investigated and if possible resolved.
How that is to be done I don't know but then its not my job to know.
Although you're wrong in thinking that prices have gone up more than wages across the board - my wages have gone up more and so have those of many people.
There are other problems - housing affordability in southern England and student debt for examples.
And if I had to say one thing that is 'broken' that would be major infrastructure investments. Not for a lack of money but because the system itself does not work.
Identify a problem, find what causes it and try to resolve it.
A more effective attitude than bewailing that 'everything is broken'.
Now I have to go to the supermarket - I suspect I will find it isn't broken.
I became somewhat politically and in conscious at an early age - about late-70s early-Thatcher. Partly through going to sleep with the radio playing from the age of about 11 (remember Radio Newsreel?), including World Service and sometimes even the foreign service of Radio Moscow.
One very formative experience for me was difficulty in getting to school because Arthur Scargill sent his mob of perhaps 1000-2000 flying thugs down the motorway to intimidate Nottinghamshire workers at Badminton Colliery. I suggest subsequent events including Scargill's campaign to make the NUM subsidise his lifestyle of the rich, and the looting of NUM Funds by a certain MP justify that evaluation (no names for OGH's sake), confirm that he was always a bad 'un - yet I find a belief in some that that behaviour was somehow OK.
I am always reluctant to vote for a party with TU affiliation, because imo politically-driven TUs in the UK are poisonous - and I can point at plenty of examples even after the TU reforms we have had, starting with McClusky and his cabal. I think I have perhaps only voted for Labour twice since - eg Gloria de Piero in 2015. But then much of the time I have only been offered a clown and a deadbeat as candidates, in Dennis Skinner and Geoff Hoon.
I don't buy the thing about "younger generations being more socially conscious" - I think that is a self-delusion that does not stand the test of history, and varies by area of society; I think it's fair to call society more individualistic now, and I am not sure either about "more environmentally conscious". It was the post-hippy or hippy-turned-practical generation that did the hard yards on much of that, and every UK Govt since 1990 that has been seriously building foundations for a greener future. Until Sunak & the current Tory leadership started burning it all down to save his butt.
Nor do I buy the thing about penalising working people to support pensioners, since pensioners have not had significant support - but perhaps I know more pensioners living on the basic pension than others here.
Current Tories? I am at the point of saying that I will never again vote Conservative, which is what I will tell Lee Anderson or his representative should they knock on my door. Translated into practice that is likely to mean 15-20 years (ie current generation of Tories), which is how long that type of resolution tends to last with me.
My reasons for that stance are their lost moral compass plus inability to govern competently in a post-Brexit environment. I'm still happy to support Brexit, as my main motivation is being outside the horrors of EU politics. I'd support single market without being subsumed by the political structures.
So my vote is available for Labour next time, dependent on getting a sane candidate. None has been appointed for Ashfield yet.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ebfa9cd9-4e3d-4253-a4c0-e427376ffdc6?shareToken=2aa921df72ffba69419c5675e21d8371
Alonso who?
Same reason that Lady Warsi gets to speak frequently despite not being active in politics for nearly a decade
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1751669017268408378