It's all Cameron's fault. An MP told Ashcroft that Middleton, **** and Cameron ******* Air at a ***** party back in 1765 whilst ****** a *** and calling on ***** to rise once more and ***** the plebs.
May I say, Mr Eagles, that we are very appreciative of all that you have done in recent weeks. I think I can claim - for once - to speak on behalf of the whole community. All OGH´s fault for going off on holiday of course. Inevitable that it would mean a lot of extra work for you.
Thank you. Mike always assures me nothing major will happen when he goes on holiday. At least Greece didn't nearly leave the Eurozone this time.
When does Mike take over again? Or is there still time?
You're kidding yourself if you think Labour is in a position comparable to start of the IDS period. IDS was just not up to the job - like Ed Miliband, or like Andy Burnham would have been. Labour's disaster is in a completely different league.
There's also the fact that IDS
(a) was only chosen as a result of a forced choice between him and a Europhile, and (b) was chosen by a tiny membership, that could easily be outvoted by an expansion in membership
In Labour's case the membership picked Corbyn by a landslide in a four-way race, including people from the mainstream of the party. It is also a huge membership that isn't going anywhere, and you'd need hundreds of thousands of members to make up the difference.
There was no expansion in membership under IDS, Howard had to be elected unopposed by a coronation and ideologically was little different from IDS. If Corbyn were toppled it would probably be by Hilary Benn, son of Campaign Group Tony, in a similar way. IDS would also probably have beaten Portillo too, as even Portillo's pollling showed, although we cannot be sure of course. Corbyn won 59%,or 251,417 votes IDS won 60%, or 155,993 votes. So IDS won almost 2/3 of Corbyn's votes and a higher percentage
Anyway, both for betting and for political reasons I'm delighted that, with a few honourable exceptions such as Southam, so many heads are being so deeply thrust into the sand.
Since when did ranting on a blog become de rigeur? Just because you don't slag off X,Y or Z does not mean you have your head I the sand.
Yet Mori on voting intention has Labour on 35%, 5% more than Miliband and better than Foot and Brown and Kinnock. OK, so the Tories are up to 39%, 2% more than they won in May too, but on voting intention at least it seems Corbyn is doing well in rallying the left and the Labour core, even if many swing voters and Tories hate him
Other polls have Labour on 30-32% so Mori may be a little high, but nonetheless Labour have clearly at least held the 30% Miliband won and maybe added to it a little
As we learned in May, the leadership ratings matter a lot, much more than headline ratings at this stage.
Yes, but Corbyn has clearly still kept Labour's core, even if he has not won over swing voters
I find it extraordinary that anyone should take voting intention polls seriously.
Not only because of the neckandneckasm but because seriously, if someone called you up four years from an election and asked you anything about that election you wouldn't even bother to mute X Factor or Strictly while you had a laugh with them.
Apart from the polls that say Jezza is worse than useless. Those are 100% dead-eyed bolted on accurate.
None of these polls have the Tories and Labour neck and neck, the Tories are clearly ahead, but Labour has not fallen to Foot levels either
They were neck and neck from GE -10 to GE morning. Polls, schmolls.
I think Lab have consolidated their base to put it mildly plus those who would rather stick pins in their eyes than vote Cons.
But I don't need to repeat what the acknowledged PB wisdom is, Lab are in a bad place and there is no immediate way out of it especially so if the likes of Red Shift et al determine that they too will replicate Cons policies only in a nicer way which a) is their only viable option for sensible government, but b) is more or less what EdM and Lab 2010-2015 tried.
May I say, Mr Eagles, that we are very appreciative of all that you have done in recent weeks. I think I can claim - for once - to speak on behalf of the whole community. All OGH´s fault for going off on holiday of course. Inevitable that it would mean a lot of extra work for you.
Thank you. Mike always assures me nothing major will happen when he goes on holiday. At least Greece didn't nearly leave the Eurozone this time.
When does Mike take over again? Or is there still time?
If he follows his usual pattern, his next big holiday will be next May.
Which should coincide with the locals/Scottish/Welsh/London Mayoral elections.
So no major repercussions from those elections (!)
You're kidding yourself if you think Labour is in a position comparable to start of the IDS period. IDS was just not up to the job - like Ed Miliband, or like Andy Burnham would have been. Labour's disaster is in a completely different league.
The first 4 polls for the Tories under IDS had them on 29%, 27%, 29% and 25%. When IDS was ousted as leader the previous 4 polls had the Tories on 33%, 34%, 38% and 31%. The first 4 polls under Corbyn have Labour on 30%, 31%, 32% and 34%. There seems little difference to me! http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
You do realise why IDS' first polls should be ignored?
Which was why I included the polls when he was ousted too. But the Tories rating pre and post 9/11 was little different. 2 August 2001 polls had the Tories on 25% and 30%
What does the Ipsos Mori say about your predictions of Corbyn being Malleus Natorum?
The Tories have a clear lead on every poll taken since Corbyn was elected, including Mori, Corbyn has simply rallied the core
You've not answered my question
Hammer of the Nats? Well every poll taken so far in Scotland has the Nats under 50%, though it seems he has helped the Tories in Scotland more than Labour, though yougov had Labour up
@Jonathan - Am I the first to notice that your profile picture has undergone a reflection about the vertical axis?
I noticed that the other day.
I thought that the original No Right Turn was rather clever. Now it appears that I may have overestimated Jonathan's wit and his avatars are merely a series of roadsigns. Shame.
It is a minor protest whilst thinks sort themselves out. Rest assured normal service will resume soon enough.
You're kidding yourself if you think Labour is in a position comparable to start of the IDS period. IDS was just not up to the job - like Ed Miliband, or like Andy Burnham would have been. Labour's disaster is in a completely different league.
The first 4 polls for the Tories under IDS had them on 29%, 27%, 29% and 25%. When IDS was ousted as leader the previous 4 polls had the Tories on 33%, 34%, 38% and 31%. The first 4 polls under Corbyn have Labour on 30%, 31%, 32% and 34%. There seems little difference to me! http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
You do realise why IDS' first polls should be ignored?
Which was why I included the polls when he was ousted too. But the Tories rating pre and post 9/11 was little different. 2 August 2001 polls had the Tories on 25% and 30%
What does the Ipsos Mori say about your predictions of Corbyn being Malleus Natorum?
The Tories have a clear lead on every poll taken since Corbyn was elected, including Mori, Corbyn has simply rallied the core
You've not answered my question
Hammer of the Nats? Well every poll taken so far in Scotland has the Nats under 50%, though it seems he has helped the Tories in Scotland more than Labour, though yougov had Labour up
Yet Mori on voting intention has Labour on 35%, 5% more than Miliband and better than Foot and Brown and Kinnock. OK, so the Tories are up to 39%, 2% more than they won in May too, but on voting intention at least it seems Corbyn is doing well in rallying the left and the Labour core, even if many swing voters and Tories hate him
Other polls have Labour on 30-32% so Mori may be a little high, but nonetheless Labour have clearly at least held the 30% Miliband won and maybe added to it a little
As we learned in May, the leadership ratings matter a lot, much more than headline ratings at this stage.
Yes, but Corbyn has clearly still kept Labour's core, even if he has not won over swing voters
I find it extraordinary that anyone should take voting intention polls seriously.
Not only because of the neckandneckasm but because seriously, if someone called you up four years from an election and asked you anything about that election you wouldn't even bother to mute X Factor or Strictly while you had a laugh with them.
Apart from the polls that say Jezza is worse than useless. Those are 100% dead-eyed bolted on accurate.
None of these polls have the Tories and Labour neck and neck, the Tories are clearly ahead, but Labour has not fallen to Foot levels either
They were neck and neck from GE -10 to GE morning. Polls, schmolls.
I think Lab have consolidated their base to put it mildly plus those who would rather stick pins in their eyes than vote Cons.
But I don't need to repeat what the acknowledged PB wisdom is, Lab are in a bad place and there is no immediate way out of it especially so if the likes of Red Shift et al determine that they too will replicate Cons policies only in a nicer way which a) is their only viable option for sensible government, but b) is more or less what EdM and Lab 2010-2015 tried.
Labour had a clear lead in 2012, the Tories were ahead in more polls than not in 2015
It's all Cameron's fault. An MP told Ashcroft that Middleton, **** and Cameron ******* Air at a ***** party back in 1765 whilst ****** a *** and calling on ***** to rise once more and ***** the plebs.
Things can change quickly in politics but Labour should be under no illusions – things are serious and Labour needs to do something about it fast.
Well, quite.
The trouble is, there is absolutely no chance of 'Labour' doing something about this fast. What is Labour? It's a party led by Corbyn and McDonnell, bankrolled by McCluskey, with a backroom team comprising Ken Livingstone staffers, and whose members - even without the affiliates and three-quidders - has just given a massive mandate to its new leadership. Far from doing anything to trash their own mandate, those who now control the party will be doing the exact, diametric opposite: moving to increase their control over the party.
For the dwindling band of sane Labour activists, MPs and staffers, there is no comfort. All they can do - assuming they don't just give up and go and do something more constructive with their lives - is hang on in there, limiting the damage if they can, in the hope that, eventually, something might turn up to change things. They're probably in for a long wait.
For the Tories it was two years.
Labour is currently an order of magnitude more bat-shit crazy than the IDS Tory party.
To be honest I am not sure. I for one would not have voted for an IDS led Tory party. It isn't just the credibility of the leader, its the credibility of a party that chooses such a leader.
The Tory party that chose IDS was old, intolerant, obsessed with Europe, rigid in its thinking and much more interested in itself than it was in the country as a whole. A Corbyn led Labour party seems out of touch on many important issues but over the generality I would say they are in the same ballpark.
I wish I could find it (I can't) but let's not forget that in a pre-leadership election Bagehot, The Economist lauded IDS to the heavens and tipped him as the deserved next Cons leader. It wasn't that obvious then that he would be so bad.
Anyway, both for betting and for political reasons I'm delighted that, with a few honourable exceptions such as Southam, so many heads are being so deeply thrust into the sand.
Since when did ranting on a blog become de rigeur? Just because you don't slag off X,Y or Z does not mean you have your head I the sand.
You more than most should know that.
Ranting is not de rigeur, but it's sensible to be realistic. I suspect you are, but you seem to be looking very hard for silver linings. It's an unmitigated disaster for Labour, and I'm afraid it's not going to get better any time soon. Even from a Conservative point of view it's disquieting to see a major political party collapse in this way, leaving no opposition to speak of.
You're kidding yourself if you think Labour is in a position comparable to start of the IDS period. IDS was just not up to the job - like Ed Miliband, or like Andy Burnham would have been. Labour's disaster is in a completely different league.
The first 4 polls for the Tories under IDS had them on 29%, 27%, 29% and 25%. When IDS was ousted as leader the previous 4 polls had the Tories on 33%, 34%, 38% and 31%. The first 4 polls under Corbyn have Labour on 30%, 31%, 32% and 34%. There seems little difference to me! http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
You do realise why IDS' first polls should be ignored?
Which was why I included the polls when he was ousted too. But the Tories rating pre and post 9/11 was little different. 2 August 2001 polls had the Tories on 25% and 30%
What does the Ipsos Mori say about your predictions of Corbyn being Malleus Natorum?
The Tories have a clear lead on every poll taken since Corbyn was elected, including Mori, Corbyn has simply rallied the core
You've not answered my question
Hammer of the Nats? Well every poll taken so far in Scotland has the Nats under 50%, though it seems he has helped the Tories in Scotland more than Labour, though yougov had Labour up
Stop lying.
Technically true, not one poll taken since Corbyn's win of all voters has the SNP at 50% or more as they were at the general election
@Jonathan - Am I the first to notice that your profile picture has undergone a reflection about the vertical axis?
I noticed that the other day.
I thought that the original No Right Turn was rather clever. Now it appears that I may have overestimated Jonathan's wit and his avatars are merely a series of roadsigns. Shame.
It is a minor protest whilst thinks sort themselves out. Rest assured normal service will resume soon enough.
Excellent. My faith in your clever choice of avatars is restored! I did rather like it as it showed some originality and I'm glad it was deliberate.
Anyway, both for betting and for political reasons I'm delighted that, with a few honourable exceptions such as Southam, so many heads are being so deeply thrust into the sand.
Since when did ranting on a blog become de rigeur? Just because you don't slag off X,Y or Z does not mean you have your head I the sand.
You more than most should know that.
My dear fellow, there is absolutely no need to slag of Corbyn. One need only report his words and deeds accurately.
It's all Cameron's fault. An MP told Ashcroft that Middleton, **** and Cameron ******* Air at a ***** party back in 1765 whilst ****** a *** and calling on ***** to rise once more and ***** the plebs.
Things can change quickly in politics but Labour should be under no illusions – things are serious and Labour needs to do something about it fast.
Well, quite.
The trouble is, there is absolutely no chance of 'Labour' doing something about this fast. What is Labour? It's a party led by Corbyn and McDonnell, bankrolled by McCluskey, with a backroom team comprising Ken Livingstone staffers, and whose members - even without the affiliates and three-quidders - has just given a massive mandate to its new leadership. Far from doing anything to trash their own mandate, those who now control the party will be doing the exact, diametric opposite: moving to increase their control over the party.
For the dwindling band of sane Labour activists, MPs and staffers, there is no comfort. All they can do - assuming they don't just give up and go and do something more constructive with their lives - is hang on in there, limiting the damage if they can, in the hope that, eventually, something might turn up to change things. They're probably in for a long wait.
For the Tories it was two years.
Labour is currently an order of magnitude more bat-shit crazy than the IDS Tory party.
To be honest I am not sure. I for one would not have voted for an IDS led Tory party. It isn't just the credibility of the leader, its the credibility of a party that chooses such a leader.
The Tory party that chose IDS was old, intolerant, obsessed with Europe, rigid in its thinking and much more interested in itself than it was in the country as a whole. A Corbyn led Labour party seems out of touch on many important issues but over the generality I would say they are in the same ballpark.
In what way are current Tory policies different to when IDS was leader? Genuine question.
From the Mandy paper - how does this stack up with Kellner's analysis?
Far from being a tidal wave of new, young idealists, he cites research showing that, overall, only 12% of his voters were under 24 years old. The bulk were retreaded Old Labourites who, together with people who voted Green at the election, gave Corbyn his victory. “This does not take away his success but it puts it into perspective and colours its legitimacy,” he concludes.
Things can change quickly in politics but Labour should be under no illusions – things are serious and Labour needs to do something about it fast.
Well, quite.
The trouble is, there is absolutely no chance of 'Labour' doing something about this fast. What is Labour? It's a party led by Corbyn and McDonnell, bankrolled by McCluskey, with a backroom team comprising Ken Livingstone staffers, and whose members - even without the affiliates and three-quidders - has just given a massive mandate to its new leadership. Far from doing anything to trash their own mandate, those who now control the party will be doing the exact, diametric opposite: moving to increase their control over the party.
For the dwindling band of sane Labour activists, MPs and staffers, there is no comfort. All they can do - assuming they don't just give up and go and do something more constructive with their lives - is hang on in there, limiting the damage if they can, in the hope that, eventually, something might turn up to change things. They're probably in for a long wait.
For the Tories it was two years.
Labour is currently an order of magnitude more bat-shit crazy than the IDS Tory party.
To be honest I am not sure. I for one would not have voted for an IDS led Tory party. It isn't just the credibility of the leader, its the credibility of a party that chooses such a leader.
The Tory party that chose IDS was old, intolerant, obsessed with Europe, rigid in its thinking and much more interested in itself than it was in the country as a whole. A Corbyn led Labour party seems out of touch on many important issues but over the generality I would say they are in the same ballpark.
In what way are current Tory policies different to when IDS was leader? Genuine question.
@Jonathan - Am I the first to notice that your profile picture has undergone a reflection about the vertical axis?
I noticed that the other day.
I thought that the original No Right Turn was rather clever. Now it appears that I may have overestimated Jonathan's wit and his avatars are merely a series of roadsigns. Shame.
It is a minor protest whilst thinks sort themselves out. Rest assured normal service will resume soon enough.
I don't think this is news or surprising. It was evident Labour's brand was 'in trouble' when YouGov found a couple of months ago that the party was more disliked than the Conservative party. Now, both parties have brand issues with different (and sometimes similar) demographics. Labour, now along with the Conservative party are no longer seen as serving the interests of the (white) working classes. Labour's handling of immigration as an issue is especially responsible here, with the perceived undercutting of wages and change in communities big grievances. Labour also have a huge issue with those in the South, and the Midlands, and in Scotland - like the Conservatives, they are no longer seen as having the best interests of Scots at heart. And in the North, voters either vote UKIP, or become more apathetic and don't vote. The only 'strong' demographic Labour have is in London, and if they lose the mayoral election in May 2016 that will be a further blow. The Conservatives have the South, the Midlands, and particularly over 55 and male voters as pro-Conservative groups. Labour has ethnic minorities, and women under 45 - but neither of these groups decide elections & Britain's population is ageing, which has led politics/elections to increasingly favour the over 55s more than any other age group.
The Labour party is seen as divided precisely because it is! It is seen as out of date because it has very little ideas for the future, and a leader who is 66. A lot of Corbyn's politics is rooted in the past, not the present. It's a shame because there are a lot of people out there (including myself) who want rid of this government as fast as possible. The Conservative party is not loved or cherised, it's put up with because it's seen as the only option. This is backed up the MORI polling - the Conservative party aren't seen as looking after the interests of ordinary people, nor are seen as party who particularly cares about those in need. If one day the Labour party does get it together, these are still signifcant weaknesses in the Conservative brand - in other words, that they are seen as the 'nasty party' - to take advantage of. Still, five years is along time and it certainly provides time - especially with the EU referendum for the party to become just as divided as Labour. A lot of the Conservative party's image of competence is based on it's handling of the economy - but if the mixed economic news continues, that image of competence could be put into question, especially if a recession occurs before 2020.
Labour can't really change much about it's brand issues - it's suffering from a lack a of talent, like politics in general is - although Labour's situation is pretty acute.
That said PB is starting to sound like an echo-chamber; everyday is get-together on how terrible Corbyn is, how Labour is doomed forever with ultra sensitivity to anyone who doesn't sign up up to this exact forecast. At some point, groundhog day should end.
Things can change quickly in politics but Labour should be under no illusions – things are serious and Labour needs to do something about it fast.
Well, quite.
The trouble is, there is absolutely no chance of 'Labour' doing something about this fast. What is Labour? It's a party led by Corbyn and McDonnell, bankrolled by McCluskey, with a backroom team comprising Ken Livingstone staffers, and whose members - even without the affiliates and three-quidders - has just given a massive mandate to its new leadership. Far from doing anything to trash their own mandate, those who now control the party will be doing the exact, diametric opposite: moving to increase their control over the party.
For the dwindling band of sane Labour activists, MPs and staffers, there is no comfort. All they can do - assuming they don't just give up and go and do something more constructive with their lives - is hang on in there, limiting the damage if they can, in the hope that, eventually, something might turn up to change things. They're probably in for a long wait.
For the Tories it was two years.
Labour is currently an order of magnitude more bat-shit crazy than the IDS Tory party.
To be honest I am not sure. I for one would not have voted for an IDS led Tory party. It isn't just the credibility of the leader, its the credibility of a party that chooses such a leader.
The Tory party that chose IDS was old, intolerant, obsessed with Europe, rigid in its thinking and much more interested in itself than it was in the country as a whole. A Corbyn led Labour party seems out of touch on many important issues but over the generality I would say they are in the same ballpark.
In what way are current Tory policies different to when IDS was leader? Genuine question.
Gay marriage and gay adoption, tax deductions for private health insurance, acceptance of climate change to name 3. IDS was also an Outer on the EU
You're kidding yourself if you think Labour is in a position comparable to start of the IDS period. IDS was just not up to the job - like Ed Miliband, or like Andy Burnham would have been. Labour's disaster is in a completely different league.
The first 4 polls for the Tories under IDS had them on 29%, 27%, 29% and 25%. When IDS was ousted as leader the previous 4 polls had the Tories on 33%, 34%, 38% and 31%. The first 4 polls under Corbyn have Labour on 30%, 31%, 32% and 34%. There seems little difference to me! http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
You do realise why IDS' first polls should be ignored?
Which was why I included the polls when he was ousted too. But the Tories rating pre and post 9/11 was little different. 2 August 2001 polls had the Tories on 25% and 30%
What does the Ipsos Mori say about your predictions of Corbyn being Malleus Natorum?
The Tories have a clear lead on every poll taken since Corbyn was elected, including Mori, Corbyn has simply rallied the core
You've not answered my question
Hammer of the Nats? Well every poll taken so far in Scotland has the Nats under 50%, though it seems he has helped the Tories in Scotland more than Labour, though yougov had Labour up
Stop lying.
Technically true, not one poll taken since Corbyn's win of all voters has the SNP at 50% or more as they were at the general election
There has no been no poll taken on Scottish VI since Corbyn's win.
There have been 4 subsamples, which from memory put SNP at mid 40s, 49, mid 50s and 53 percent. But these are utterly meaningless.
I'm sure you will keep lying anyway. Posting deliberate falsehoods which could cause someone to lose money (this is a betting site after all) should really be dealt with by the moderators.
Anyway, both for betting and for political reasons I'm delighted that, with a few honourable exceptions such as Southam, so many heads are being so deeply thrust into the sand.
Since when did ranting on a blog become de rigeur? Just because you don't slag off X,Y or Z does not mean you have your head I the sand.
You more than most should know that.
Pretty much this. Anyone who is on the Left who isn't slagging off Corbyn 24/7 outraged at his every move, thought, and statement has their hand 'in the sand' essentially.
Anyway, both for betting and for political reasons I'm delighted that, with a few honourable exceptions such as Southam, so many heads are being so deeply thrust into the sand.
Since when did ranting on a blog become de rigeur? Just because you don't slag off X,Y or Z does not mean you have your head I the sand.
You more than most should know that.
Even from a Conservative point of view it's disquieting to see a major political party collapse in this way, leaving no opposition to speak of.
No it isn't, Msr Le Marquis, it is not disquieting at all. Its fecking hilarious, especially when one reflects on Kinnock's grind the Tories into the dust speech. I am not even a Conservative and I think it vastly amusing that the party which projected so much hate is now falling apart at the seams.
The only thing to regret is that reports of Labour's imminent demise are exaggerated and the wretched party will continue polluting the body politic for many years yet. Meanwhile let us enjoy the moment, not cry crocodile tears about the absence of an effective opposition.
Things can change quickly in politics but Labour should be under no illusions – things are serious and Labour needs to do something about it fast.
Well, quite.
The trouble is, there is absolutely no chance of 'Labour' doing something about this fast. What is Labour? It's a party led by Corbyn and McDonnell, bankrolled by McCluskey, with a backroom team comprising Ken Livingstone staffers, and whose members - even without the affiliates and three-quidders - has just given a massive mandate to its new leadership. Far from doing anything to trash their own mandate, those who now control the party will be doing the exact, diametric opposite: moving to increase their control over the party.
For the dwindling band of sane Labour activists, MPs and staffers, there is no comfort. All they can do - assuming they don't just give up and go and do something more constructive with their lives - is hang on in there, limiting the damage if they can, in the hope that, eventually, something might turn up to change things. They're probably in for a long wait.
For the Tories it was two years.
Labour is currently an order of magnitude more bat-shit crazy than the IDS Tory party.
To be honest I am not sure. I for one would not have voted for an IDS led Tory party. It isn't just the credibility of the leader, its the credibility of a party that chooses such a leader.
The Tory party that chose IDS was old, intolerant, obsessed with Europe, rigid in its thinking and much more interested in itself than it was in the country as a whole. A Corbyn led Labour party seems out of touch on many important issues but over the generality I would say they are in the same ballpark.
In what way are current Tory policies different to when IDS was leader? Genuine question.
IDS voted to retain Section 28.
Dave's Tories voted to make same sex marriage.
(and yes Dave voted to retain section 28)
OK, admittedly I'll give you gay rights.
But the Tories seem as obsesed with Europe, as hostile to the poor, and as right-wing economically now as they were under IDS, to me. Even Dave's early obsession with the environment has disappeared.
From the Mandy paper - how does this stack up with Kellner's analysis?
Far from being a tidal wave of new, young idealists, he cites research showing that, overall, only 12% of his voters were under 24 years old. The bulk were retreaded Old Labourites who, together with people who voted Green at the election, gave Corbyn his victory. “This does not take away his success but it puts it into perspective and colours its legitimacy,” he concludes.
Erm, how many adults are "under 24 years old"? That is to say, between 18 and 23; another way to put it is that they were ineligible to vote in the 2010 general election. It sounds like a shockingly high figure to me given the low level of engagement in practically anything among 18-to-23-year olds, but this is a report by one of the Old Masters of political ars-obscura so bear that in mind. It's not even news; the breakdown by membership category made it extremely clear that Corbyn's "legitimacy" comes from massive support in all sections of the party. (But Old Labour support "colours its legitimacy"!!!!!)
No it isn't, Msr Le Marquis, it is not disquieting at all. Its fecking hilarious, especially when one reflects on Kinnock's grind the Tories into the dust speech. I am not even a Conservative and I think it vastly amusing that the party which projected so much hate is now falling apart at the seams.
The only thing to regret is that reports of Labour's imminent demise are exaggerated and the wretched party will continue polluting the body politic for many years yet. Meanwhile let us enjoy the moment, not cry crocodile tears about the absence of an effective opposition.
Well, yes, there is that!
In all seriousness, I do think that the absence of an effective opposition will eventually become a problem (assuming it persists), but it's not a problem in the short to medium term. The government has a slim majority and is hardly in a position to ride rough-shod over democratic niceties.
I don't think Conservatives instincts towards the state, and its role have really changed that much. It's more that under Cameron the Conservative party has attempted to make itself seem more inclusive, socially liberal and modern. Whether the electorate actually believes that the Conservative party are either of these things is another matter. Certainly the party isn't as socially liberal as it would have us believe if you look at how many Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage, for example. Given that the party's biggest supporters are also the over 55s, you have to question how 'modern' they are, especially given how young people always seem to be doing something wrong in Toryland: getting grades which are inflated, too many going to uni, too many doing apprenticeships not rated by employers, too many not respecting authority so corporal punishment should be brought back because it was better in my day and so on...
Things can change quickly in politics but Labour should be under no illusions – things are serious and Labour needs to do something about it fast.
Well, quite.
The trouble is, there is absolutely no chance of 'Labour' doing something about this fast. What is Labour? It's a party led by Corbyn and McDonnell, bankrolled by McCluskey, with a backroom team comprising Ken Livingstone staffers, and whose members - even without the affiliates and three-quidders - has just given a massive mandate to its new leadership. Far from doing anything to trash their own mandate, those who now control the party will be doing the exact, diametric opposite: moving to increase their control over the party.
For the dwindling band of sane Labour activists, MPs and staffers, there is no comfort. All they can do - assuming they don't just give up and go and do something more constructive with their lives - is hang on in there, limiting the damage if they can, in the hope that, eventually, something might turn up to change things. They're probably in for a long wait.
For the Tories it was two years.
Labour is currently an order of magnitude more bat-shit crazy than the IDS Tory party.
To be honest I am not sure. I for one would not have voted for an IDS led Tory party. It isn't just the credibility of the leader, its the credibility of a party that chooses such a leader.
The Tory party that chose IDS was old, intolerant, obsessed with Europe, rigid in its thinking and much more interested in itself than it was in the country as a whole. A Corbyn led Labour party seems out of touch on many important issues but over the generality I would say they are in the same ballpark.
In what way are current Tory policies different to when IDS was leader? Genuine question.
The Tories have moved a long way to the left since the early 2000s. The minimum wage a good example. Gay marriage is another. Cameron is to the left of a Major. You could make a case that the Tories are to the left of Blaiir and Uk politics is more left wing overall than at anytime since Wilson-Heath.
Things can change quickly in politics but Labour should be under no illusions – things are serious and Labour needs to do something about it fast.
Well, quite.
The trouble is, there is absolutely no chance of 'Labour' doing something about this fast. What is Labour? It's a party led by Corbyn and McDonnell, bankrolled by McCluskey, with a backroom team comprising Ken Livingstone staffers, and whose members - even without the affiliates and three-quidders - has just given a massive mandate to its new leadership. Far from doing anything to trash their own mandate, those who now control the party will be doing the exact, diametric opposite: moving to increase their control over the party.
For the dwindling band of sane Labour activists, MPs and staffers, there is no comfort. All they can do - assuming they don't just give up and go and do something more constructive with their lives - is hang on in there, limiting the damage if they can, in the hope that, eventually, something might turn up to change things. They're probably in for a long wait.
For the Tories it was two years.
Labour is currently an order of magnitude more bat-shit crazy than the IDS Tory party.
To be honest I am not sure. I for one would not have voted for an IDS led Tory party. It isn't just the credibility of the leader, its the credibility of a party that chooses such a leader.
The Tory party that chose IDS was old, intolerant, obsessed with Europe, rigid in its thinking and much more interested in itself than it was in the country as a whole. A Corbyn led Labour party seems out of touch on many important issues but over the generality I would say they are in the same ballpark.
In what way are current Tory policies different to when IDS was leader? Genuine question.
IDS voted to retain Section 28.
Dave's Tories voted to make same sex marriage.
(and yes Dave voted to retain section 28)
OK, admittedly I'll give you gay rights.
But the Tories seem as obsesed with Europe, as hostile to the poor, and as right-wing economically now as they were under IDS, to me.
Speaking as one of the few Pro EU Tories around, we're still obsessed about Europe, but we realise it's not the main issue that excites the public.
It's all about the economy and things like the NHS and Education
Things can change quickly in politics but Labour should be under no illusions – things are serious and Labour needs to do something about it fast.
Well, quite.
The trouble is, there is absolutely no chance of 'Labour' doing something about this fast. What is Labour? It's a party led by Corbyn and McDonnell, bankrolled by McCluskey, with a backroom team comprising Ken Livingstone staffers, and whose members - even without the affiliates and three-quidders - has just given a massive mandate to its new leadership. Far from doing anything to trash their own mandate, those who now control the party will be doing the exact, diametric opposite: moving to increase their control over the party.
For the dwindling band of sane Labour activists, MPs and staffers, there is no comfort. All they can do - assuming they don't just give up and go and do something more constructive with their lives - is hang on in there, limiting the damage if they can, in the hope that, eventually, something might turn up to change things. They're probably in for a long wait.
For the Tories it was two years.
Labour is currently an order of magnitude more bat-shit crazy than the IDS Tory party.
To be honest I am not sure. I for one would not have voted for an IDS led Tory party. It isn't just the credibility of the leader, its the credibility of a party that chooses such a leader.
The Tory party that chose IDS was old, intolerant, obsessed with Europe, rigid in its thinking and much more interested in itself than it was in the country as a whole. A Corbyn led Labour party seems out of touch on many important issues but over the generality I would say they are in the same ballpark.
In what way are current Tory policies different to when IDS was leader? Genuine question.
The Tories have moved a long way to the left since the early 2000s. The minimum wage a good example. Gay marriage is another. Cameron is to the left of a Major. You could make a case that the Tories are to the left of Blaiir and Uk politics is more left wing overall than at anytime since Wilson-Heath.
Didn't the Tories already accept the minimum wage when Portillo was the shadow chancellor before the 2001 GE?
Remember Major said a few years ago that Cameron's welfare policies were too harsh. I'm not convinced he's to Major's left at all (apart from on gay rights which is really probably just a worldwide shift).
You're kidding yourself if you think Labour is in a position comparable to start of the IDS period. IDS was just not up to the job - like Ed Miliband, or like Andy Burnham would have been. Labour's disaster is in a completely different league.
The first 4 polls for the Tories under IDS had them on 29%, 27%, 29% and 25%. When IDS was ousted as leader the previous 4 polls had the Tories on 33%, 34%, 38% and 31%. The first 4 polls under Corbyn have Labour on 30%, 31%, 32% and 34%. There seems little difference to me! http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005
You do realise why IDS' first polls should be ignored?
Which was why I included the polls when he was ousted too. But the Tories rating pre and post 9/11 was little different. 2 August 2001 polls had the Tories on 25% and 30%
What does the Ipsos Mori say about your predictions of Corbyn being Malleus Natorum?
The Tories have a clear lead on every poll taken since Corbyn was elected, including Mori, Corbyn has simply rallied the core
You've not answered my question
Hammer of the Nats? Well every poll taken so far in Scotland has the Nats under 50%, though it seems he has helped the Tories in Scotland more than Labour, though yougov had Labour up
Stop lying.
Technically true, not one poll taken since Corbyn's win of all voters has the SNP at 50% or more as they were at the general election
There has no been no poll taken on Scottish VI since Corbyn's win.
There have been 4 subsamples, which from memory put SNP at mid 40s, 49, mid 50s and 53 percent. But these are utterly meaningless.
I'm sure you will keep lying anyway. Posting deliberate falsehoods which could cause someone to lose money (this is a betting site after all) should really be dealt with by the moderators.
Nothing false about it at all. Yougov had the SNP on 44%, Comres and Mori on 49%. The SNP won 50% in May
I find the "obsessed with Europe" line to be a ridiculous one. It's like saying the SNP are "obsessed with the union". EU policy decides everything from who we have to let in to our country to how our food is made to how business is regulated. What is a more important issue than who governs us?
I can't help but feel those who make the accusation just feel like they have lost the argument and thus would rather there wasn't any discussion around it.
Things can change quickly in politics but Labour should be under no illusions – things are serious and Labour needs to do something about it fast.
Well, quite.
The trouble is, there is absolutely no chance of 'Labour' doing something about this fast. What is Labour? It's a party led by Corbyn and McDonnell, bankrolled by McCluskey, with a backroom team comprising Ken Livingstone staffers, and whose members - even without the affiliates and three-quidders - has just given a massive mandate to its new leadership. Far from doing anything to trash their own mandate, those who now control the party will be doing the exact, diametric opposite: moving to increase their control over the party.
For the dwindling band of sane Labour activists, MPs and staffers, there is no comfort. All they can do - assuming they don't just give up and go and do something more constructive with their lives - is hang on in there, limiting the damage if they can, in the hope that, eventually, something might turn up to change things. They're probably in for a long wait.
For the Tories it was two years.
Labour is currently an order of magnitude more bat-shit crazy than the IDS Tory party.
To be honest I am not sure. I for one would not have voted for an IDS led Tory party. It isn't just the credibility of the leader, its the credibility of a party that chooses such a leader.
The Tory party that chose IDS was old, intolerant, obsessed with Europe, rigid in its thinking and much more interested in itself than it was in the country as a whole. A Corbyn led Labour party seems out of touch on many important issues but over the generality I would say they are in the same ballpark.
In what way are current Tory policies different to when IDS was leader? Genuine question.
The Tories have moved a long way to the left since the early 2000s. The minimum wage a good example. Gay marriage is another. Cameron is to the left of a Major. You could make a case that the Tories are to the left of Blaiir and Uk politics is more left wing overall than at anytime since Wilson-Heath.
On spending Cameron's target of 35% would be lower than the 39% or so of the Major years and closer to the last years of Thatcher and the very early Blair years
I don't think Conservatives instincts towards the state, and its role have really changed that much. It's more that under Cameron the Conservative party has attempted to make itself seem more inclusive, socially liberal and modern. Whether the electorate actually believes that the Conservative party are either of these things is another matter. Certainly the party isn't as socially liberal as it would have us believe if you look at how many Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage, for example. Given that the party's biggest supporters are also the over 55s, you have to question how 'modern' they are, especially given how young people always seem to be doing something wrong in Toryland: getting grades which are inflated, too many going to uni, too many doing apprenticeships not rated by employers, too many not respecting authority so corporal punishment should be brought back because it was better in my day and so on...
A fine selection of prejudices there, Miss. One day, perhaps, you will realise that most over 55s are actually worried more about the future of their children and grandchildren than they are for themselves and that concerns over falling standards in education exist for a reason.
Things can change quickly in politics but Labour should be under no illusions – things are serious and Labour needs to do something about it fast.
Well, quite.
The trouble is, there is absolutely no chance of 'Labour' doing something about this fast. What is Labour? It's a party led by Corbyn and McDonnell, bankrolled by McCluskey, with a backroom team comprising Ken Livingstone staffers, and whose members - even without the affiliates and three-quidders - has just given a massive mandate to its new leadership. Far from doing anything to trash their own mandate, those who now control the party will be doing the exact, diametric opposite: moving to increase their control over the party.
For the dwindling band of sane Labour activists, MPs and staffers, there is no comfort. All they can do - assuming they don't just give up and go and do something more constructive with their lives - is hang on in there, limiting the damage if they can, in the hope that, eventually, something might turn up to change things. They're probably in for a long wait.
For the Tories it was two years.
Labour is currently an order of magnitude more bat-shit crazy than the IDS Tory party.
To be honest I am not sure. I for one would not have voted for an IDS led Tory party. It isn't just the credibility of the leader, its the credibility of a party that chooses such a leader.
The Tory party that chose IDS was old, intolerant, obsessed with Europe, rigid in its thinking and much more interested in itself than it was in the country as a whole. A Corbyn led Labour party seems out of touch on many important issues but over the generality I would say they are in the same ballpark.
In what way are current Tory policies different to when IDS was leader? Genuine question.
The Tories have moved a long way to the left since the early 2000s. The minimum wage a good example. Gay marriage is another. Cameron is to the left of a Major. You could make a case that the Tories are to the left of Blaiir and Uk politics is more left wing overall than at anytime since Wilson-Heath.
Didn't the Tories already accept the minimum wage when Portillo was the shadow chancellor before the 2001 GE?
Remember Major said a few years ago that Cameron's welfare policies were too harsh. I'm not convinced he's to Major's left at all (apart from on gay rights which is really probably just a worldwide shift).
Didn't the Tories already accept the minimum wage when Portillo was the shadow chancellor before the 2001 GE?
Remember Major said a few years ago that Cameron's welfare policies were too harsh. I'm not convinced he's to Major's left at all (apart from on gay rights which is really probably just a worldwide shift).
Major governed during a time of plenty, thanks to inheriting a Conservative-run economy. Cameron inherited a Labour-run economy, and had to go a lot further to balance the books.
PB comment consensus is that a Labour government is now inconceivable, essentially forever. I say forever because the Labour Party would be very different by the time they get into government again, so nothing we say about them today is useful, just as talking about Foot's Labour would have been useless to describe what eventually happened. Now some say that 50 Conservative losses could lead to a Labour-SNP coalition, but maybe it's hard to identify 50 seats that could be lost and the forecast of long-term Conservative rule is correct. So is the party system sustainable, will people nowadays be happy to distribute their votes in a way that keeps a party they apparently hate in power on a third of the vote, or will Labour cease to exist and be replaced, and if so by what?
I find the "obsessed with Europe" line to be a ridiculous one. It's like saying the SNP are "obsessed with the union". EU policy decides everything from who we have to let in to our country to how our food is made to how business is regulated. What is a more important issue than who governs us?
I can't help but feel those who make the accusation just feel like they have lost the argument and thus would rather there wasn't any discussion around it.
1993 - 2005 - Tories obsessed about the EU, they didn't win a general election
2005 onwards - We stopped banging on about the EU and guess what we've started winning elections again.
FYI - I consider Pro-EU people just as guilty, it all started with Sir Geoffrey Howe in 1990, if only he had toppled Thatcher over the poll tax, things would have been very different.
I find the "obsessed with Europe" line to be a ridiculous one. It's like saying the SNP are "obsessed with the union". EU policy decides everything from who we have to let in to our country to how our food is made to how business is regulated. What is a more important issue than who governs us?
I can't help but feel those who make the accusation just feel like they have lost the argument and thus would rather there wasn't any discussion around it.
If this was directed at me, then it's definitely not because I feel I've "lost the argument": I might well vote Out, although I don't think the EU is that big a deal eitherway.
I don't think Conservatives instincts towards the state, and its role have really changed that much. It's more that under Cameron the Conservative party has attempted to make itself seem more inclusive, socially liberal and modern. Whether the electorate actually believes that the Conservative party are either of these things is another matter. Certainly the party isn't as socially liberal as it would have us believe if you look at how many Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage, for example. Given that the party's biggest supporters are also the over 55s, you have to question how 'modern' they are, especially given how young people always seem to be doing something wrong in Toryland: getting grades which are inflated, too many going to uni, too many doing apprenticeships not rated by employers, too many not respecting authority so corporal punishment should be brought back because it was better in my day and so on...
A fine selection of prejudices there, Miss. One day, perhaps, you will realise that most over 55s are actually worried more about the future of their children and grandchildren than they are for themselves and that concerns over falling standards in education exist for a reason.
It's another thing to be concerned over falling educational standards, it's another thing to deliberate attempt to devalue others academic achievements with pats on the back about how things were better in my day, and 'look how great my grades in the 70s/80s were'.
If most of the over 55s are worried about the future of their children and grandchildren, it's odd they are choosing to expressing this concern by voting Conservative.
Didn't the Tories already accept the minimum wage when Portillo was the shadow chancellor before the 2001 GE?
Remember Major said a few years ago that Cameron's welfare policies were too harsh. I'm not convinced he's to Major's left at all (apart from on gay rights which is really probably just a worldwide shift).
Blair pulled the Tories to the left, of that there is no doubt. And when Osborne is celebrated for adopting Milibands ideas, you do wonder whether they owe more to Blair and Heath than Thatcher these days. It in part explains Labours troubles.
I've never bought the idea that they are uber right wing under Cameron. However it will be interesting to see what happens in the next five years.
I don't think Conservatives instincts towards the state, and its role have really changed that much. It's more that under Cameron the Conservative party has attempted to make itself seem more inclusive, socially liberal and modern. Whether the electorate actually believes that the Conservative party are either of these things is another matter. Certainly the party isn't as socially liberal as it would have us believe if you look at how many Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage, for example. Given that the party's biggest supporters are also the over 55s, you have to question how 'modern' they are, especially given how young people always seem to be doing something wrong in Toryland: getting grades which are inflated, too many going to uni, too many doing apprenticeships not rated by employers, too many not respecting authority so corporal punishment should be brought back because it was better in my day and so on...
You're effectively arguing towards the end there that a party that is concerned about educational and vocational outcomes for young people is an "old person's party" that doesn't care about young people.
I wouldn't mistake someone being concerned about education quality for a declaration of war on your age group. No point having a chip on your shoulder about it - not convinced that most young people do, actually. Obviously the "grade inflation" accusations rankle but I think a lot of youngsters feel that, in many subjects, it was harder in the old days*. And there are plenty of people who go to uni, or finish an apprenticeship, and are disappointed with the its quality or design or relevance.
* (When I was a teacher/FE lecturer, anyone A-level student who I forced to do O-level questions was most definitely left with this impression.)
I find the "obsessed with Europe" line to be a ridiculous one. It's like saying the SNP are "obsessed with the union". EU policy decides everything from who we have to let in to our country to how our food is made to how business is regulated. What is a more important issue than who governs us?
I can't help but feel those who make the accusation just feel like they have lost the argument and thus would rather there wasn't any discussion around it.
1993 - 2005 - Tories obsessed about the EU, they didn't win a general election
2005 onwards - We stopped banging on about the EU and guess what we've started winning elections again.
FYI - I consider Pro-EU people just as guilty, it all started with Sir Geoffrey Howe in 1990, if only he had toppled Thatcher over the poll tax, things would have been very different.
Now Cameron has simply called a little EU referendum in 2 years time to decide whether we stay in the EU or leave, before returning to 'hardworking families'
I find the "obsessed with Europe" line to be a ridiculous one. It's like saying the SNP are "obsessed with the union". EU policy decides everything from who we have to let in to our country to how our food is made to how business is regulated. What is a more important issue than who governs us?
I can't help but feel those who make the accusation just feel like they have lost the argument and thus would rather there wasn't any discussion around it.
1993 - 2005 - Tories obsessed about the EU, they didn't win a general election
2005 onwards - We stopped banging on about the EU and guess what we've started winning elections again.
FYI - I consider Pro-EU just as guilty, it all started with Sir Geoffrey Howe in 1990, if only he had toppled Thatcher over the poll tax, things would have been very different.
You seem to be living in a different reality to me. Our party's euroscepticism has been far more vocal and part of our platform in recent years than it was between 1993-2005. Back then it was just about not joining the most extreme integrationist policies like the Euro. At the last election we promised to renegotiate the treaties and offered a referendum to leave the EU entirely, a highly popular policy. Capping the EU budget and vetoing the fiscal compact were two of Cameron's biggest poll jumps in the last five years.
I don't think Conservatives instincts towards the state, and its role have really changed that much. It's more that under Cameron the Conservative party has attempted to make itself seem more inclusive, socially liberal and modern. Whether the electorate actually believes that the Conservative party are either of these things is another matter. Certainly the party isn't as socially liberal as it would have us believe if you look at how many Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage, for example. Given that the party's biggest supporters are also the over 55s, you have to question how 'modern' they are, especially given how young people always seem to be doing something wrong in Toryland: getting grades which are inflated, too many going to uni, too many doing apprenticeships not rated by employers, too many not respecting authority so corporal punishment should be brought back because it was better in my day and so on...
A fine selection of prejudices there, Miss. One day, perhaps, you will realise that most over 55s are actually worried more about the future of their children and grandchildren than they are for themselves and that concerns over falling standards in education exist for a reason.
It's another thing to be concerned over falling educational standards, it's another thing to deliberate attempt to devalue others academic achievements with pats on the back about how things were better in my day, and 'look how great my grades in the 70s/80s were'.
If most of the over 55s are worried about the future of their children and grandchildren, it's odd they are choosing to expressing this concern by voting Conservative.
Miss, you may want to reflect on your last paragraph. People are behaving in a way that you do not comprehend, that makes no sense to you. Why is that?
I don't think Conservatives instincts towards the state, and its role have really changed that much. It's more that under Cameron the Conservative party has attempted to make itself seem more inclusive, socially liberal and modern. Whether the electorate actually believes that the Conservative party are either of these things is another matter. Certainly the party isn't as socially liberal as it would have us believe if you look at how many Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage, for example. Given that the party's biggest supporters are also the over 55s, you have to question how 'modern' they are, especially given how young people always seem to be doing something wrong in Toryland: getting grades which are inflated, too many going to uni, too many doing apprenticeships not rated by employers, too many not respecting authority so corporal punishment should be brought back because it was better in my day and so on...
A fine selection of prejudices there, Miss. One day, perhaps, you will realise that most over 55s are actually worried more about the future of their children and grandchildren than they are for themselves and that concerns over falling standards in education exist for a reason.
It's another thing to be concerned over falling educational standards, it's another thing to deliberate attempt to devalue others academic achievements with pats on the back about how things were better in my day, and 'look how great my grades in the 70s/80s were'.
If most of the over 55s are worried about the future of their children and grandchildren, it's odd they are choosing to expressing this concern by voting Conservative.
In the real world, nowadays, grades exist to allocate the same cohorts of students to different paths in their immediate future. Complaining about "grade inflation" because the names of the relative categories has changed is such virtue signalling.
I find the "obsessed with Europe" line to be a ridiculous one. It's like saying the SNP are "obsessed with the union". EU policy decides everything from who we have to let in to our country to how our food is made to how business is regulated. What is a more important issue than who governs us?
I can't help but feel those who make the accusation just feel like they have lost the argument and thus would rather there wasn't any discussion around it.
If this was directed at me, then it's definitely not because I feel I've "lost the argument": I might well vote Out, although I don't think the EU is that big a deal eitherway.
No. You seemed to just repeat the phrase when it was used further downthread.
The Labour party is democratic, which nowadays, means it is not top lead down.
Yes, quite. So there's no hope of fixing things. The lunatics have taken over the asylum, and there is no mechanism to displace them. Corbyn will be able to see off the remaining band of sensible MPs and other senior people by appealing direct to the membership, which has been heavily infiltrated by the extreme left.
The 'madwoman' has been let out of the attic and the flickering candle's about to set fire to the curtains..
I find the "obsessed with Europe" line to be a ridiculous one. It's like saying the SNP are "obsessed with the union". EU policy decides everything from who we have to let in to our country to how our food is made to how business is regulated. What is a more important issue than who governs us?
I can't help but feel those who make the accusation just feel like they have lost the argument and thus would rather there wasn't any discussion around it.
1993 - 2005 - Tories obsessed about the EU, they didn't win a general election
2005 onwards - We stopped banging on about the EU and guess what we've started winning elections again.
FYI - I consider Pro-EU just as guilty, it all started with Sir Geoffrey Howe in 1990, if only he had toppled Thatcher over the poll tax, things would have been very different.
You seem to be living in a different reality to me. Our party's euroscepticism has been far more vocal and part of our platform in recent years than it was between 1993-2005. Back then it was just about not joining the most extreme integrationist policies like the Euro. At the last election we promised to renegotiate the treaties and offered a referendum to leave the EU entirely, a highly popular policy. Capping the EU budget and vetoing the fiscal compact were two of Cameron's biggest poll jumps in the last five years.
I agree it has been vocal. But unlike 1993 to 2005 we talk about other things as well.
I don't think Conservatives instincts towards the state, and its role have really changed that much. It's more that under Cameron the Conservative party has attempted to make itself seem more inclusive, socially liberal and modern. Whether the electorate actually believes that the Conservative party are either of these things is another matter. Certainly the party isn't as socially liberal as it would have us believe if you look at how many Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage, for example. Given that the party's biggest supporters are also the over 55s, you have to question how 'modern' they are, especially given how young people always seem to be doing something wrong in Toryland: getting grades which are inflated, too many going to uni, too many doing apprenticeships not rated by employers, too many not respecting authority so corporal punishment should be brought back because it was better in my day and so on...
You're effectively arguing towards the end there that a party that is concerned about educational and vocational outcomes for young people is an "old person's party" that doesn't care about young people.
I wouldn't mistake someone being concerned about education quality for a declaration of war on your age group. No point having a chip on your shoulder about it - not convinced that most young people do, actually. Obviously the "grade inflation" accusations rankle but I think a lot of youngsters feel that, in many subjects, it was harder in the old days. And there are plenty of people who go to uni, or finish an apprenticeship, and are disappointed with the its quality or design or relevance.
I don't think the Conservative party is *that* concerned about educational and vocational outcomes for young people. The only individuals who I hear talk about how amazing Michael Gove is, are essentially those on the Right of British politics.
Most young people don't particularly care what Conservatives (or any other political party and its voters/members) think or say, which is why most young people 'don't have a chip on their shoulder' as you put it. A lot 'youngsters' (that word is awful) don't even know how it was in the old days to think that it was hard to begin with. Many young people are ploughing through exams, be it GCSEs, or A-levels, and certainly aren't finding it easy, as some would have it. I'm not mistakening concern about education quality as a declaration of war of young people, because very little of the discussion is centred on the system, and far more on criticising young people, and comparing their academic achievements to those in the 80s and 90s.
If most of the over 55s are worried about the future of their children and grandchildren, it's odd they are choosing to expressing this concern by voting Conservative.
Eh? How on earth do you come to that conclusion? They vote Conservative because:
- They want to bequeath a good economy to future generations, with debt under control
- They want youngsters to be employed rather than given perverse incentives to rely on the state to the detriment of their own mental health, well-being and long-term prosperity
- They want the bottom 25% by income to have the kind of good education which tragically has been denied to them by years of Labour mismangement of education and the doleful effect of the educational vested interests.
- They want a country which is socially harmonious and not split into divisive ethnic and social ghettos.
It's another thing to be concerned over falling educational standards, it's another thing to deliberate attempt to devalue others academic achievements with pats on the back about how things were better in my day, and 'look how great my grades in the 70s/80s were'.
If most of the over 55s are worried about the future of their children and grandchildren, it's odd they are choosing to expressing this concern by voting Conservative.
Why odd? Have you considered that real-world problems are complex and have many different approaches to tackling them? That even if one policy is actually more efficacious than another, that two people might hold conflicting views on which is best? That in fact there are entirely different metrics for effectiveness that could be used, and the choice of which is "best" is therefore somewhat subjective, even if we could predict with certainty (and we can't) the outcomes, particularly the second-order effects, that such policies might have?
The Tories don't parade around before election day proclaiming "we'll sort out the policies we're good at, but by the way WE HAVE DELIBERATELY DESIGNED ATROCIOUS POLICIES TOWARDS YOUNG PEOPLE, SO IF YOU WANT TO PUNISH YOUNG PEOPLE THEN BE DOUBLY CERTAIN TO VOTE FOR US!" Nor do Labour fanny about saying that they will bring about Nirvana for the youngsters, but will rain hell upon pensioners. They both produce policies that, they hope, will make life better, even for people outside their core demographics. The Tories don't want to ruin the education system. They may propose different solutions to Labour, but "disagreeing with Labour" is not the same as "wanting to destroy everything". Perfectly rational, intelligent people vote Tory precisely because they happen to think that the Tory policy proposals will be better. Which isn't a "funny way of expressing their concern" at all.
Miss, you may want to reflect on your last paragraph. People are behaving in a way that you do not comprehend, that makes no sense to you. Why is that?
Why does voting Tory if you care about young people not make sense to me? Probably because Conservative polices are geared mostly towards the over 55s, and then the middle classes.
I find the "obsessed with Europe" line to be a ridiculous one. It's like saying the SNP are "obsessed with the union". EU policy decides everything from who we have to let in to our country to how our food is made to how business is regulated. What is a more important issue than who governs us?
I can't help but feel those who make the accusation just feel like they have lost the argument and thus would rather there wasn't any discussion around it.
1993 - 2005 - Tories obsessed about the EU, they didn't win a general election
2005 onwards - We stopped banging on about the EU and guess what we've started winning elections again.
FYI - I consider Pro-EU just as guilty, it all started with Sir Geoffrey Howe in 1990, if only he had toppled Thatcher over the poll tax, things would have been very different.
You seem to be living in a different reality to me. Our party's euroscepticism has been far more vocal and part of our platform in recent years than it was between 1993-2005. Back then it was just about not joining the most extreme integrationist policies like the Euro. At the last election we promised to renegotiate the treaties and offered a referendum to leave the EU entirely, a highly popular policy. Capping the EU budget and vetoing the fiscal compact were two of Cameron's biggest poll jumps in the last five years.
I agree it has been vocal. But unlike 1993 to 2005 we talk about other things as well.
My memory isn't what it used to be, but there again before age and drink got to me it was superb, but I do seem to recall that the years 1993-2005 were not in the Conservative Party solely dominated by Europe. There were quite a lot of other things going on. What makes you say that the Conservatives spoke of nothing else during that period?
If most of the over 55s are worried about the future of their children and grandchildren, it's odd they are choosing to expressing this concern by voting Conservative.
Eh? How on earth do you come to that conclusion? They vote Conservative because:
- They want to bequeath a good economy to future generations, with debt under control
- They want youngsters to be employed rather than given perverse incentives to rely on the state to the detriment of their own mental health, well-being and long-term prosperity
- They want the bottom 25% by income to have the kind of good education which tragically has been denied to them by years of Labour mismangement of education and the doleful effect of the educational vested interests.
- They want a country which is socially harmonious and not split into divisive ethnic and social ghettos.
Motherhood and apple pie and ,apart from the partisan digs, stuff that all parties from most eras would sign up to.
It's the HOW that differs. One might argue for example, that the best way to avoid saddling future generations with debt is not move state borrowing onto personal borrowing in the form of student loans to cover tuition fees.
Miss, you may want to reflect on your last paragraph. People are behaving in a way that you do not comprehend, that makes no sense to you. Why is that?
Why does voting Tory if you care about young people not make sense to me? Probably because Conservative polices are geared mostly towards the over 55s, and then the middle classes.
Please, please go back and read what I said and consider your view that if over 55s were really concerned about their children and grandchildren they shouldn't be voting conservative. Really I am not asking you to tell me anything I merely suggest that you might benefit from reflecting on if there is a reason why the over 55s, who are in the main more concerned about the future of their children and grandchildren than themselves, tend to vote Conservative.
Wouldn't politics be jolly more fun if parties were more outright factionalist and actually did live up to their caricatures?
Labour can warn middle class people that it will confiscate their businesses and force them to accommodate ten immigrants in their back-bedroom so that the upstairs of their house can become more refreshingly diverse. It can promise to destroy the values of pensioners' pots, except for the poor ones who it will dump money and fuel and free TV for them to waste their lives on. Children can be assured of straights A-stars and the feckless need never work again (or indeed, for the first time), but will be assigned a full-time personal nurse, doctor, obesity coordinator and fitness instructor in a landmark expansion of the Beloved NHS.
If you are poor, the Tories will promise to ease your burden by eating your baby, leaving you with one less mouth to feed. If your gran is poor too, they will feed her to you; where once there were two hungry mouth, now they may bring meat and blissful oblivion. Migrants will not be eaten, but the dodgier-looking ones will be deported, and the rest will be kicked in the balls. Billionaire overseas media barons, housemaids and royalty will be gallant exceptions. The NHS will be stripped of foreign staff, in fact stripped of all staff, and giving medical aid to poor people (whether for charity or for profit) will be banned outright to encourage a healthier gene pool. One percent of children will go to university, but it will be a "proper" one, and the rest will be given a jolly good caning until they learn some respect.
The Lib Dems would probably just want to be nice to everyone, though if you own a big house they would like to be very very nice to you while they take your mansion away in installments and say something platitudinous about young people and house prices. Old favourites of children's TV will be aired again, this time with characters arranged in previously unthinkable marital, sexual and familial units. Roads will be painted green and community groups will be allowed to add floral patterns, carefully selected by locally-elected panels to ensure they reflect regional diversity.
Motherhood and apple pie and ,apart from the partisan digs, stuff that all parties from most eras would sign up to.
It's the HOW that differs. One might argue for example, that the best way to avoid saddling future generations with debt is not move state borrowing onto personal borrowing in the form of student loans to cover tuition fees.
Yes, but I was explaining to Ms Apocalypse the viewpoint of Conservative voters. For some bizarre reason, she doesn't seem to be able to get her head around the idea that, as @MyBurningEars points out, Tory voters are voting for what they believe to be the best solutions for society as a whole, but particularly for young people.
If most of the over 55s are worried about the future of their children and grandchildren, it's odd they are choosing to expressing this concern by voting Conservative.
Eh? How on earth do you come to that conclusion? They vote Conservative because:
- They want to bequeath a good economy to future generations, with debt under control
- They want youngsters to be employed rather than given perverse incentives to rely on the state to the detriment of their own mental health, well-being and long-term prosperity
- They want the bottom 25% by income to have the kind of good education which tragically has been denied to them by years of Labour mismangement of education and the doleful effect of the educational vested interests.
- They want a country which is socially harmonious and not split into divisive ethnic and social ghettos.
Motherhood and apple pie and ,apart from the partisan digs, stuff that all parties from most eras would sign up to.
It's the HOW that differs. One might argue for example, that the best way to avoid saddling future generations with debt is not move state borrowing onto personal borrowing in the form of student loans to cover tuition fees.
Only the Conservatives want people to be employed. Literally every other party from the Lib Dems to Ukip believes in youth unemployment and social strife.
If most of the over 55s are worried about the future of their children and grandchildren, it's odd they are choosing to expressing this concern by voting Conservative.
Eh? How on earth do you come to that conclusion? They vote Conservative because:
- They want to bequeath a good economy to future generations, with debt under control
- They want youngsters to be employed rather than given perverse incentives to rely on the state to the detriment of their own mental health, well-being and long-term prosperity
- They want the bottom 25% by income to have the kind of good education which tragically has been denied to them by years of Labour mismangement of education and the doleful effect of the educational vested interests.
- They want a country which is socially harmonious and not split into divisive ethnic and social ghettos.
t's odd that they don't consider their own benefits 'perverse incentives', but rather conveniently consider the benefits of the young, the unemployed, and the poorest in society 'perverse.'
And as for education, it's been mismanaged by both political parties, it's hardly a Labour only issue. Though I bet when social mobility was falling in the 1980s and 1990s, pensioners will still voting Tory then.
It's another thing to be concerned over falling educational standards, it's another thing to deliberate attempt to devalue others academic achievements with pats on the back about how things were better in my day, and 'look how great my grades in the 70s/80s were'.
If most of the over 55s are worried about the future of their children and grandchildren, it's odd they are choosing to expressing this concern by voting Conservative.
Why odd? Have you considered that real-world problems are complex and have many different approaches to tackling them? That even if one policy is actually more efficacious than another, that two people might hold conflicting views on which is best? That in fact there are entirely different metrics for effectiveness that could be used, and the choice of which is "best" is therefore somewhat subjective, even if we could predict with certainty (and we can't) the outcomes, particularly the second-order effects, that such policies might have?
The Tories don't parade around before election day proclaiming "we'll sort out the policies we're good at, but by the way WE HAVE DELIBERATELY DESIGNED ATROCIOUS POLICIES TOWARDS YOUNG PEOPLE, SO IF YOU WANT TO PUNISH YOUNG PEOPLE THEN BE DOUBLY CERTAIN TO VOTE FOR US!" Nor do Labour fanny about saying that they will bring about Nirvana for the youngsters, but will rain hell upon pensioners. They both produce policies that, they hope, will make life better, even for people outside their core demographics. The Tories don't want to ruin the education system. They may propose different solutions to Labour, but "disagreeing with Labour" is not the same as "wanting to destroy everything". Perfectly rational, intelligent people vote Tory precisely because they happen to think that the Tory policy proposals will be better. Which isn't a "funny way of expressing their concern" at all.
I never said the Conservatives deliberately want to ruin the education system. This also isn't about disagreeing with Labour, I didn't even bring up with Labour party. Perfectly rational, intelligent people vote Tory because they think Tory proposals will be better. For their interests. That's not always the interests of society, or of other demographics - such as young people. Most vote in their own self-interest.
@HurstLlama - They vote Conservative for reasons for self-interest (mainly economic) and the fact that as people get older, they become more Conservative in attitudes and thoughts.
You're kidding yourself if you think Labour is in a position comparable to start of the IDS period. IDS was just not up to the job - like Ed Miliband, or like Andy Burnham would have been. Labour's disaster is in a completely different league.
This is why Corbyn is such a blow for the Tores. Labour will replace him with someone slightly less insane. Burnham would have been permanently terminally useless and would have royally pissed of labour's lefty loonies and still split the party.
(l'm only half joking. Civil war looms for labour and thats got to be good and fun. But please let them replace Corbyn with Burnham. Otherwise the Tores might struggle if they replace him with someone like ... err... errr... hmm... )
If most of the over 55s are worried about the future of their children and grandchildren, it's odd they are choosing to expressing this concern by voting Conservative.
Eh? How on earth do you come to that conclusion? They vote Conservative because:
- They want to bequeath a good economy to future generations, with debt under control
- They want youngsters to be employed rather than given perverse incentives to rely on the state to the detriment of their own mental health, well-being and long-term prosperity
- They want the bottom 25% by income to have the kind of good education which tragically has been denied to them by years of Labour mismangement of education and the doleful effect of the educational vested interests.
- They want a country which is socially harmonious and not split into divisive ethnic and social ghettos.
Motherhood and apple pie and ,apart from the partisan digs, stuff that all parties from most eras would sign up to.
It's the HOW that differs. One might argue for example, that the best way to avoid saddling future generations with debt is not move state borrowing onto personal borrowing in the form of student loans to cover tuition fees.
And yet the current system is very similar (almost identical in its effects, really) to a graduate tax. I think it's disingenous to compare student loans with personal debt, since though they do affect the ability e.g. to take out a mortgage (because it reduces post-tax free income) doesn't have minimum repayments or a need to repay if out of work or in low income.
There's a case that graduate taxes are a poor policy because young people are poor financial planners, and it causes young people to under-invest in their own futures. That's probably stronger than the "crushing debt" argument. Someone who genuinely believes that student loans under the current system are a form of crushing debt is basically saying that higher tax rates are a bitch. Oddly this argument usually comes from people who can be heard to opine that "the middle-classes could cope with a tax rise, and are probably due one" ...
Though I bet when social mobility was falling in the 1980s and 1990s, pensioners will still voting Tory then.
In the 1980s, people, including pensioners, were voting Tory principally to rescue the country from the absolutely awful state which thuggish unions, appalling nationalised industries and state interference in industry had got it into. That, quite rightly, completely dominated politics at the time, overwhelming all other concerns. It's true that education got a bit neglected as a side-effect then, and in retrospect the continued destruction of the grammar schools for ideological reasons was a big long-term drag on social mobility. On the other hand, Kenneth Baker started some excellent reforms which Blair later built on.
Though I bet when social mobility was falling in the 1980s and 1990s, pensioners will still voting Tory then.
In the 1980s, people, including pensioners, were voting Tory principally to rescue the country from the absolutely awful state which thuggish unions and appalling nationalised industries had got it into. That, quite rightly, completely dominated politics at the time, overwhelming all other concerns. It's true that education got a bit neglected as a side-effect then, and in retrospect the continued destruction of the grammar schools for ideological reasons was a big long-term drag on social mobility. On the other hand, Kenneth Baker started some excellent reforms which Blair later built on.
A didn't Thatcher as education secretary play a part in that?
And as for education reforms, I thought Labour's handling of education was terrible. If you're referring to the marketisation of education regarding Blair, his academy programme had pretty mixed results overall. And crucially, under Baker and Blair social mobility still continued to fall.
Miss, you may want to reflect on your last paragraph. People are behaving in a way that you do not comprehend, that makes no sense to you. Why is that?
Why does voting Tory if you care about young people not make sense to me? Probably because Conservative polices are geared mostly towards the over 55s, and then the middle classes.
@HurstLlama - They vote Conservative for reasons for self-interest (mainly economic) and the fact that as people get older, they become more Conservative in attitudes and thoughts.
You haven't engaged with the question. Do please think about it. No need to reply to me, but please take the time to think. Treat it as an academic exercise if you like, you are a university student so regardless of your discipline this sort of thing should be well within your grasp. Imagine an essay question:
"If the over 55s are more concerned with the future of their children and grandchildren than their own well being, why then do they vote conservative?"
I never said the Conservatives deliberately want to ruin the education system. This also isn't about disagreeing with Labour, I didn't even bring up with Labour party. Perfectly rational, intelligent people vote Tory because they think Tory proposals will be better. For their interests. That's not always the interests of society, or of other demographics - such as young people. Most vote in their own self-interest.
It's true that people often vote on narrow rather than broad issues. I think Richard N overstates the case that people vote in the "national interest", though it's true in e.g. the 1980s there was a "who runs the country", heart-and-soul element to our elections that has largely been supplanted in our age of more technocratic and media-focused parties. (Corbynites certainly see an "us-vs-them" element, of a privileged elite clique running the country, and holding the 99% down - they don't feel the need to distinguish between Blair and Cameron, or frankly between most MPs who are in the comfortable 1%. But their perspective is not representative of the electorate at large, or even of Labour supporters.)
But even in "self-interest" terms, policies have a lot of knock-on effects. For instance, Labour's genuinely mystifying decision to give a free TV licence to all households containing a pensioner, not just pensioner-only households, means that there are millions of people with a gran living in the house who get the free licence and would have to cough up if that pensioners' giveaway was taken away. Middle-aged people with kids at uni are affected by the situation with tuition fees and grants, and that often affects their financial planning a decade before the fact. Somebody with a friend on disability benefit will be acutely aware of the effects of government policy on that area.
Motherhood and apple pie and ,apart from the partisan digs, stuff that all parties from most eras would sign up to.
It's the HOW that differs. One might argue for example, that the best way to avoid saddling future generations with debt is not move state borrowing onto personal borrowing in the form of student loans to cover tuition fees.
Yes, but I was explaining to Ms Apocalypse the viewpoint of Conservative voters. For some bizarre reason, she doesn't seem to be able to get her head around the idea that, as @MyBurningEars points out, Tory voters are voting for what they believe to be the best solutions for society as a whole, but particularly for young people.
Correct. And it's a pretty insulting as well as an ignorant view.
@HurstLlama - They vote Conservative for reasons for self-interest (mainly economic) and the fact that as people get older, they become more Conservative in attitudes and thoughts.
You haven't engaged with the question. Do please think about it. No need to reply to me, but please take the time to think. Treat it as an academic exercise if you like, you are a university student so regardless of your discipline this sort of thing should be well within your grasp. Imagine an essay question:
"If the over 55s are more concerned with the future of the children and grandchildren than their own well being, why then do they vote conservative?"
I have engaged with the question - I've just given an answer that you disagree with.
A didn't Thatcher as education secretary play a part in that?
And as for education reforms, I thought Labour's handling of education was terrible. If you're referring to the marketisation of education regarding Blair, his academy programme had pretty mixed results overall. And crucially, under Baker and Blair social mobility still continued to fall.
You seem to jump seamlessly from your own analysis to concluding that anyone who doesn't agree with it is not just wrong but 'voting in their own interests' or that ' the Conservative party is [not] *that* concerned about educational and vocational outcomes for young people'.
You are, quite simply, wrong. All the Conservative voters I know - many of them well over 55 and often sufficiently well-off not to be too bothered for themselves what government does - care a lot about the long-term future of the country and the prospects for young people. They do, after all, often have children, grand-children and great-grandchildren whom they care about, but more generally they care about the country as a whole. That is why they get involved.
@HurstLlama - They vote Conservative for reasons for self-interest (mainly economic) and the fact that as people get older, they become more Conservative in attitudes and thoughts.
You haven't engaged with the question. Do please think about it. No need to reply to me, but please take the time to think. Treat it as an academic exercise if you like, you are a university student so regardless of your discipline this sort of thing should be well within your grasp. Imagine an essay question:
"If the over 55s are more concerned with the future of their children and grandchildren than their own well being, why then do they vote conservative?"
Because Conservative policies work and will leave a better world for children and grandchildren and over 55's understand that.
Who is going to pay for Gordon Brown's debt and the deficit he left (that Labour keep saying shouldn't be cut measure by measure)? The children, grandchildren and greatgrandchildren of over 55's.
If the over 55's were being just self-interested they'd have little reason to care about the deficit.
@HurstLlama - They vote Conservative for reasons for self-interest (mainly economic) and the fact that as people get older, they become more Conservative in attitudes and thoughts.
You haven't engaged with the question. Do please think about it. No need to reply to me, but please take the time to think. Treat it as an academic exercise if you like, you are a university student so regardless of your discipline this sort of thing should be well within your grasp. Imagine an essay question:
"If the over 55s are more concerned with the future of the children and grandchildren than their own well being, why then do they vote conservative?"
I have engaged with the question - I've just given an answer that you disagree with.
I never said the Conservatives deliberately want to ruin the education system. This also isn't about disagreeing with Labour, I didn't even bring up with Labour party. Perfectly rational, intelligent people vote Tory because they think Tory proposals will be better. For their interests. That's not always the interests of society, or of other demographics - such as young people. Most vote in their own self-interest.
It's true that people often vote on narrow rather than broad issues. I think Richard N overstates the case that people vote in the "national interest", though it's true in e.g. the 1980s there was a "who runs the country", heart-and-soul element to our elections that has largely been supplanted in our age of more technocratic and media-focused parties. (Corbynites certainly see an "us-vs-them" element, of a privileged elite clique running the country, and holding the 99% down - they don't feel the need to distinguish between Blair and Cameron, or frankly between most MPs who are in the comfortable 1%. But their perspective is not representative of the electorate at large, or even of Labour supporters.)
But even in "self-interest" terms, policies have a lot of knock-on effects. For instance, Labour's genuinely mystifying decision to give a free TV licence to all households containing a pensioner, not just pensioner-only households, means that there are millions of people with a gran living in the house who get the free licence and would have to cough up if that pensioners' giveaway was taken away. Middle-aged people with kids at uni are affected by the situation with tuition fees and grants, and that often affects their financial planning a decade before the fact. Somebody with a friend on disability benefit will be acutely aware of the effects of government policy on that area.
The only time my own parents were affected by tuition fees/grants, was when student finance contacted them to request how much household income was (to see if I qualified/how much I would get for a maintenance grant). So I'd be intrigue to see how much this really affects parents. I agree that polices have knock-on effects, but I doubt many people can foresee that.
Given that since Thatcher politics has trended right-wards and education, the economy, inequality, and social mobility have all gotten worse it's questionable that Conservative polices 'will work' and 'leave a better world for their children'. If over 55s believe that, they may wrong in their assumption.
@Richard_Navabi I'm not wrong. Nor do I accept the idea that well off Conservative voters for the most part don't care - or don't need to care in relation to what government does. Certainly many well-off people cared about much government may, or may not tax them at the GE which is why many did not want to vote Labour. If they are worried about the country, it's odd that they are voting Conservative - not only because the Conservatives told us very little about their plans during the GE, but also because Conservative polices are generally quite divisive. They clearly are far more beneficial for certain demographics than fore others - which is why certain demographics vote Tory, and others don't.
The only time my own parents were affected by tuition fees/grants, was when student finance contacted them to request how much household income was (to see if I qualified/how much I would get for a maintenance grant). So I'd be intrigue to see how much this really affects parents. I agree that polices have knock-on effects, but I doubt many people can foresee that.
Several things: firstly, kids staying at home during vacations. Child benefit has already ended of course but how much disposable income an extra person in the household has certainly matters. If you are used to living on a tight budget you will understand this point instantly!
Secondly, kids needing extra cash during term-time. If their grant/loan is not enough and they need more, do you want them to go to the bank and get into commercial debt? Quite a lot of students do this but it's not great financially. Parents may decide to supplement their child's entitlement.
Thirdly, I knew several adults who manipulated their household income in order that their children would benefit from additional entitlements: for example by going part-time, or not seeking to renew their work contract, or cutting down self-employed or freelancing hours. Your parents may not have been in a position where this mattered but if you have several children at university, then it is easily possible to get several thousand pounds more of entitlement for your family, by only reducing your post-tax income by £1000. There are marginal tax rates (on a "household unit" rather than individual basis) well over a hundred percent. Careful financial planning can avoid throwing many thousands of pounds of (family) money away. (Someone who owns their own business and takes part of their income through dividends will certainly be checking and planning this stuff!)
On the flip side, there are also some parents who refuse to allow their child to "go into debt" to attend uni. So they "save up so that their child can afford uni". For years, sometimes (in upper middle-class households this is not that uncommon) from when the child is born. You can get specialist financial products for this kind of stuff.
@HurstLlama - They vote Conservative for reasons for self-interest (mainly economic) and the fact that as people get older, they become more Conservative in attitudes and thoughts.
You haven't engaged with the question. Do please think about it. No need to reply to me, but please take the time to think. Treat it as an academic exercise if you like, you are a university student so regardless of your discipline this sort of thing should be well within your grasp. Imagine an essay question:
"If the over 55s are more concerned with the future of the children and grandchildren than their own well being, why then do they vote conservative?"
I have engaged with the question - I've just given an answer that you disagree with.
The only time my own parents were affected by tuition fees/grants, was when student finance contacted them to request how much household income was (to see if I qualified/how much I would get for a maintenance grant). So I'd be intrigue to see how much this really affects parents. I agree that polices have knock-on effects, but I doubt many people can foresee that.
Several things: firstly, kids staying at home during vacations. Child benefit has already ended of course but how much disposable income an extra person in the household has certainly matters. If you are used to living on a tight budget you will understand this point instantly!
Secondly, kids needing extra cash during term-time. If their grant/loan is not enough and they need more, do you want them to go to the bank and get into commercial debt? Quite a lot of students do this but it's not great financially. Parents may decide to supplement their child's entitlement.
Thirdly, I knew several adults who manipulated their household income in order that their children would benefit from additional entitlements: for example by going part-time, or not seeking to renew their work contract, or cutting down self-employed or freelancing hours. Your parents may not have been in a position where this mattered but if you have several children at university, then it is easily possible to get several thousand pounds more of entitlement for your family, by only reducing your post-tax income by £1000. There are marginal tax rates (on a "household unit" rather than individual basis) well over a hundred percent. Careful financial planning can avoid throwing many thousands of pounds of (family) money away.
On the flip side, there are also some parents who refuse to allow their child to "go into debt" to attend uni. So they "save up so that their child can afford uni". For years, sometimes (in upper middle-class households this is not that uncommon) from when the child is born. You can get specialist financial products for this kind of stuff.
Wow. I hope those people didn't vote Tory, if they had to go through all of that.
If most of the over 55s are worried about the future of their children and grandchildren, it's odd they are choosing to expressing this concern by voting Conservative.
Eh? How on earth do you come to that conclusion? They vote Conservative because:
- They want to bequeath a good economy to future generations, with debt under control
- They want youngsters to be employed rather than given perverse incentives to rely on the state to the detriment of their own mental health, well-being and long-term prosperity
- They want the bottom 25% by income to have the kind of good education which tragically has been denied to them by years of Labour mismangement of education and the doleful effect of the educational vested interests.
- They want a country which is socially harmonious and not split into divisive ethnic and social ghettos.
Motherhood and apple pie and ,apart from the partisan digs, stuff that all parties from most eras would sign up to.
It's the HOW that differs. One might argue for example, that the best way to avoid saddling future generations with debt is not move state borrowing onto personal borrowing in the form of student loans to cover tuition fees.
The best thing for future generations is to get them with the sort of education that will help them best deal with the globalised competition they will be facing. Tuition fees have done a fantastic job of doing that: knowing they are taking on debt, there has been a major move towards the most employable subjects rather than the flippant attitude that people used to have in the 1990s. Universities are also looking much more closely at how they can best provide graduates a good transition to employment, knowing competition is getting more fierce.
Given that since Thatcher politics has trended right-wards and education, the economy, inequality, and social mobility have all gotten worse it's questionable that Conservative polices 'will work' and 'leave a better world for their children'. If over 55s believe that, they may wrong in their assumption.
@Richard_Navabi I'm not wrong. Nor do I accept the idea that well off Conservative voters for the most part don't care - or don't need to care in relation to what government does. Certainly many well-off people cared about much government may, or may not tax them at the GE which is why many did not want to vote Labour. If they are worried about the country, it's odd that they are voting Conservative - not only because the Conservatives told us very little about their plans during the GE, but also because Conservative polices are generally quite divisive. They clearly are far more beneficial for certain demographics than fore others - which is why certain demographics vote Tory, and others don't.
Given that your premise is false, so is your conclusion. Where do you draw the line at saying the past was better than today? Lets say 1979 which is pre-Thatcher.
On the economy alone GDP per capita is over 60% higher in real terms now than it was in 1979.
Of course if you live in a cloud cuckoo land where a 60% improvement in real terms is a bad thing then you are of course entitled to whatever delusions you want. But don't expect others to share them.
Comments
You more than most should know that.
I think Lab have consolidated their base to put it mildly plus those who would rather stick pins in their eyes than vote Cons.
But I don't need to repeat what the acknowledged PB wisdom is, Lab are in a bad place and there is no immediate way out of it especially so if the likes of Red Shift et al determine that they too will replicate Cons policies only in a nicer way which a) is their only viable option for sensible government, but b) is more or less what EdM and Lab 2010-2015 tried.
Which should coincide with the locals/Scottish/Welsh/London Mayoral elections.
So no major repercussions from those elections (!)
I did rather like it as it showed some originality and I'm glad it was deliberate.
Dave's Tories voted to make same sex marriage.
(and yes Dave voted to retain section 28)
http://www.greatyarmouthmercury.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.1139592.1322558567!/image/2657955423.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_225/2657955423.jpg
The Labour party is seen as divided precisely because it is! It is seen as out of date because it has very little ideas for the future, and a leader who is 66. A lot of Corbyn's politics is rooted in the past, not the present. It's a shame because there are a lot of people out there (including myself) who want rid of this government as fast as possible. The Conservative party is not loved or cherised, it's put up with because it's seen as the only option. This is backed up the MORI polling - the Conservative party aren't seen as looking after the interests of ordinary people, nor are seen as party who particularly cares about those in need. If one day the Labour party does get it together, these are still signifcant weaknesses in the Conservative brand - in other words, that they are seen as the 'nasty party' - to take advantage of. Still, five years is along time and it certainly provides time - especially with the EU referendum for the party to become just as divided as Labour. A lot of the Conservative party's image of competence is based on it's handling of the economy - but if the mixed economic news continues, that image of competence could be put into question, especially if a recession occurs before 2020.
Labour can't really change much about it's brand issues - it's suffering from a lack a of talent, like politics in general is - although Labour's situation is pretty acute.
That said PB is starting to sound like an echo-chamber; everyday is get-together on how terrible Corbyn is, how Labour is doomed forever with ultra sensitivity to anyone who doesn't sign up up to this exact forecast. At some point, groundhog day should end.
There have been 4 subsamples, which from memory put SNP at mid 40s, 49, mid 50s and 53 percent. But these are utterly meaningless.
I'm sure you will keep lying anyway. Posting deliberate falsehoods which could cause someone to lose money (this is a betting site after all) should really be dealt with by the moderators.
The only thing to regret is that reports of Labour's imminent demise are exaggerated and the wretched party will continue polluting the body politic for many years yet. Meanwhile let us enjoy the moment, not cry crocodile tears about the absence of an effective opposition.
But the Tories seem as obsesed with Europe, as hostile to the poor, and as right-wing economically now as they were under IDS, to me. Even Dave's early obsession with the environment has disappeared.
Any PBers there?
In all seriousness, I do think that the absence of an effective opposition will eventually become a problem (assuming it persists), but it's not a problem in the short to medium term. The government has a slim majority and is hardly in a position to ride rough-shod over democratic niceties.
It's all about the economy and things like the NHS and Education
Westminster
Cons For 126 Against 134
Holyrood
Cons For 7 Against 8
Remember Major said a few years ago that Cameron's welfare policies were too harsh. I'm not convinced he's to Major's left at all (apart from on gay rights which is really probably just a worldwide shift).
I can't help but feel those who make the accusation just feel like they have lost the argument and thus would rather there wasn't any discussion around it.
2005 onwards - We stopped banging on about the EU and guess what we've started winning elections again.
FYI - I consider Pro-EU people just as guilty, it all started with Sir Geoffrey Howe in 1990, if only he had toppled Thatcher over the poll tax, things would have been very different.
If most of the over 55s are worried about the future of their children and grandchildren, it's odd they are choosing to expressing this concern by voting Conservative.
I've never bought the idea that they are uber right wing under Cameron. However it will be interesting to see what happens in the next five years.
I wouldn't mistake someone being concerned about education quality for a declaration of war on your age group. No point having a chip on your shoulder about it - not convinced that most young people do, actually. Obviously the "grade inflation" accusations rankle but I think a lot of youngsters feel that, in many subjects, it was harder in the old days*. And there are plenty of people who go to uni, or finish an apprenticeship, and are disappointed with the its quality or design or relevance.
* (When I was a teacher/FE lecturer, anyone A-level student who I forced to do O-level questions was most definitely left with this impression.)
Most young people don't particularly care what Conservatives (or any other political party and its voters/members) think or say, which is why most young people 'don't have a chip on their shoulder' as you put it. A lot 'youngsters' (that word is awful) don't even know how it was in the old days to think that it was hard to begin with. Many young people are ploughing through exams, be it GCSEs, or A-levels, and certainly aren't finding it easy, as some would have it. I'm not mistakening concern about education quality as a declaration of war of young people, because very little of the discussion is centred on the system, and far more on criticising young people, and comparing their academic achievements to those in the 80s and 90s.
- They want to bequeath a good economy to future generations, with debt under control
- They want youngsters to be employed rather than given perverse incentives to rely on the state to the detriment of their own mental health, well-being and long-term prosperity
- They want the bottom 25% by income to have the kind of good education which tragically has been denied to them by years of Labour mismangement of education and the doleful effect of the educational vested interests.
- They want a country which is socially harmonious and not split into divisive ethnic and social ghettos.
The Tories don't parade around before election day proclaiming "we'll sort out the policies we're good at, but by the way WE HAVE DELIBERATELY DESIGNED ATROCIOUS POLICIES TOWARDS YOUNG PEOPLE, SO IF YOU WANT TO PUNISH YOUNG PEOPLE THEN BE DOUBLY CERTAIN TO VOTE FOR US!" Nor do Labour fanny about saying that they will bring about Nirvana for the youngsters, but will rain hell upon pensioners. They both produce policies that, they hope, will make life better, even for people outside their core demographics. The Tories don't want to ruin the education system. They may propose different solutions to Labour, but "disagreeing with Labour" is not the same as "wanting to destroy everything". Perfectly rational, intelligent people vote Tory precisely because they happen to think that the Tory policy proposals will be better. Which isn't a "funny way of expressing their concern" at all.
It's the HOW that differs. One might argue for example, that the best way to avoid saddling future generations with debt is not move state borrowing onto personal borrowing in the form of student loans to cover tuition fees.
Labour can warn middle class people that it will confiscate their businesses and force them to accommodate ten immigrants in their back-bedroom so that the upstairs of their house can become more refreshingly diverse. It can promise to destroy the values of pensioners' pots, except for the poor ones who it will dump money and fuel and free TV for them to waste their lives on. Children can be assured of straights A-stars and the feckless need never work again (or indeed, for the first time), but will be assigned a full-time personal nurse, doctor, obesity coordinator and fitness instructor in a landmark expansion of the Beloved NHS.
If you are poor, the Tories will promise to ease your burden by eating your baby, leaving you with one less mouth to feed. If your gran is poor too, they will feed her to you; where once there were two hungry mouth, now they may bring meat and blissful oblivion. Migrants will not be eaten, but the dodgier-looking ones will be deported, and the rest will be kicked in the balls. Billionaire overseas media barons, housemaids and royalty will be gallant exceptions. The NHS will be stripped of foreign staff, in fact stripped of all staff, and giving medical aid to poor people (whether for charity or for profit) will be banned outright to encourage a healthier gene pool. One percent of children will go to university, but it will be a "proper" one, and the rest will be given a jolly good caning until they learn some respect.
The Lib Dems would probably just want to be nice to everyone, though if you own a big house they would like to be very very nice to you while they take your mansion away in installments and say something platitudinous about young people and house prices. Old favourites of children's TV will be aired again, this time with characters arranged in previously unthinkable marital, sexual and familial units. Roads will be painted green and community groups will be allowed to add floral patterns, carefully selected by locally-elected panels to ensure they reflect regional diversity.
And as for education, it's been mismanaged by both political parties, it's hardly a Labour only issue. Though I bet when social mobility was falling in the 1980s and 1990s, pensioners will still voting Tory then.
Burnham would have been permanently terminally useless and would have royally pissed of labour's lefty loonies and still split the party.
(l'm only half joking. Civil war looms for labour and thats got to be good and fun. But please let them replace Corbyn with Burnham. Otherwise the Tores might struggle if they replace him with someone like ... err... errr... hmm... )
There's a case that graduate taxes are a poor policy because young people are poor financial planners, and it causes young people to under-invest in their own futures. That's probably stronger than the "crushing debt" argument. Someone who genuinely believes that student loans under the current system are a form of crushing debt is basically saying that higher tax rates are a bitch. Oddly this argument usually comes from people who can be heard to opine that "the middle-classes could cope with a tax rise, and are probably due one" ...
And as for education reforms, I thought Labour's handling of education was terrible. If you're referring to the marketisation of education regarding Blair, his academy programme had pretty mixed results overall. And crucially, under Baker and Blair social mobility still continued to fall.
"If the over 55s are more concerned with the future of their children and grandchildren than their own well being, why then do they vote conservative?"
Chedgrave & Thurton
South Norfolk District
Labour 93
*Conservative 260
LibDem 69
UKIP 64
Spoiled 6
turnout 23%
Loddon Division
Norfolk County COuncil
Labour 357
*Conservative 1094
LibDem 235
UKIP 233
Spoiled 7
turnout 23%
Bunnco - Your Man on the Spot
But even in "self-interest" terms, policies have a lot of knock-on effects. For instance, Labour's genuinely mystifying decision to give a free TV licence to all households containing a pensioner, not just pensioner-only households, means that there are millions of people with a gran living in the house who get the free licence and would have to cough up if that pensioners' giveaway was taken away. Middle-aged people with kids at uni are affected by the situation with tuition fees and grants, and that often affects their financial planning a decade before the fact. Somebody with a friend on disability benefit will be acutely aware of the effects of government policy on that area.
You are, quite simply, wrong. All the Conservative voters I know - many of them well over 55 and often sufficiently well-off not to be too bothered for themselves what government does - care a lot about the long-term future of the country and the prospects for young people. They do, after all, often have children, grand-children and great-grandchildren whom they care about, but more generally they care about the country as a whole. That is why they get involved.
Who is going to pay for Gordon Brown's debt and the deficit he left (that Labour keep saying shouldn't be cut measure by measure)? The children, grandchildren and greatgrandchildren of over 55's.
If the over 55's were being just self-interested they'd have little reason to care about the deficit.
Chedgrave & Thurton
South Norfolk District
Labour 93 19%
*Conservative 260 53%
LibDem 69 14%
UKIP 64 13%
Spoiled 6 1%
T/out 23% 492 100%
Loddon Division
Norfolk County COuncil
Labour 357 19%
*Conservative 1094 57%
LibDem 235 12%
UKIP 233 12%
Spoiled 7 0%
T/out 23% 1926 100%
@Richard_Navabi I'm not wrong. Nor do I accept the idea that well off Conservative voters for the most part don't care - or don't need to care in relation to what government does. Certainly many well-off people cared about much government may, or may not tax them at the GE which is why many did not want to vote Labour. If they are worried about the country, it's odd that they are voting Conservative - not only because the Conservatives told us very little about their plans during the GE, but also because Conservative polices are generally quite divisive. They clearly are far more beneficial for certain demographics than fore others - which is why certain demographics vote Tory, and others don't.
Secondly, kids needing extra cash during term-time. If their grant/loan is not enough and they need more, do you want them to go to the bank and get into commercial debt? Quite a lot of students do this but it's not great financially. Parents may decide to supplement their child's entitlement.
Thirdly, I knew several adults who manipulated their household income in order that their children would benefit from additional entitlements: for example by going part-time, or not seeking to renew their work contract, or cutting down self-employed or freelancing hours. Your parents may not have been in a position where this mattered but if you have several children at university, then it is easily possible to get several thousand pounds more of entitlement for your family, by only reducing your post-tax income by £1000. There are marginal tax rates (on a "household unit" rather than individual basis) well over a hundred percent. Careful financial planning can avoid throwing many thousands of pounds of (family) money away. (Someone who owns their own business and takes part of their income through dividends will certainly be checking and planning this stuff!)
On the flip side, there are also some parents who refuse to allow their child to "go into debt" to attend uni. So they "save up so that their child can afford uni". For years, sometimes (in upper middle-class households this is not that uncommon) from when the child is born. You can get specialist financial products for this kind of stuff.
On the economy alone GDP per capita is over 60% higher in real terms now than it was in 1979.
Of course if you live in a cloud cuckoo land where a 60% improvement in real terms is a bad thing then you are of course entitled to whatever delusions you want. But don't expect others to share them.