politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New academic research shows the wide differences between CON m
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New academic research shows the wide differences between CON members and those who join other parties
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
This is hardly a surprising finding, is it?
The collapse of UKIP also means the Tories largely have the right to themselves while there are still more alternative parties on the left to Labour even though most leftwingers are now voting Labour.
All it well with me thanks.
Happy Hogmanay to you and Mrs G.
Can't do both.
It just happens to disagree with you about being in Europe.
In any event, the survey would be more interesting if it included a comparison with the opinions of the UK voters overall.
I am disappointed that so many of my fellow Labourites appear to favour a racist immigration policy post-Brexit. Same rules doesn't mean a 'tough line', it means non-discriminatory rather than favouring white Europeans.
It's all heading in the wrong direction for the Tories...
The middle-aged man in a Durham pit village is a more typical member than the purple-haired student in Camden.
I of course favour a very open immigration system - that is not what the right wingers who are driving Brexit desire...
This Daily Mash article is the gift that keeps on giving.
thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-claims-hius-life-being-ruined-by-immigration-but-cant-explain-how-20170227122932
Quite frankly this faux "will someone please think of the sub-Saharan Africans" quite nauseating and well below your (and others') usual standard of discourse. And the bar is pretty low to start with.
Its base and voting core now will tend to push it in a more socially conservative direction. If it does something radically different, under an Osborne agenda, for instance, the risk is it instantly slips back to 35-36% of the vote - satisfying affluent middle classes in the south in the process - but losing the election to Corbyn's Labour.
The Tories need to try and mitigate the concerns of those who are culturally at odds with them, and appeal to their economic competence. But, it will be very hard.
So whilst appealing to a shrinking but still sizable group right now they could well be polluting the future pool who may not see the Conservatives as their natural choice as much as the older people before them did. Not just declining home ownership or it coming later in life but the decline of newspapers will have an impact as well.
There are enough people who support them in the country to do it.
The truly shocking figure in all these numbers is the domination of all parties by ABC1 class.
The population however is aging. There are far more older -over 55s -in the population than under 25s, and therefore electorally the Tories have an advantage.
More generally, what the survey shows is that party members don't reflect the views of those who vote for each party, or indeed in many cases the official party line. That's the case in several of the points highlighted, for example the death penalty for the Conservatives, Brexit for Labour.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/03/stop-brexit-campaign-vote-leave-populist
Bringing back capital punishment is an extremist view, but then again so is expropriation of property - how many Labour members believe that property should be seized in the event of a housing crisis, eg after Grenfell? How many would ban second homes, or BTL landlords?
How many Labour members believe in the complete renationalisation of all the utilities, with or without compensation? Or would support an effective tax rate of 90% (or even a total cap?) on earnings over 150k per annum?
How many Lib Dem members believe that Brexit should be overturned without a second referendum? Or would still want it overturned even if a hypothetical second referendum were to take place and they lost, again.
I've heard all these views espoused by Labour and Lib Dem members I know yet they're not under the microscope here. But extremists exist in all parties, and it's no surprise to learn that party members tend to have more extreme views one way or the other than the general public.
I would be surprised if most Tory voters do not back the return of the death penalty given that a majority in the country does. Likewise, all the polling indicates that most Labour voters also voted Remain.
they need Tony Blair giving us divine guidance on the subject from on high
And interesting to hear about the '85 Las Cases - I bet it was fantastic!
The only meaningful national (can't see them turning up locally) vote is between the two "best" candidates. Let's imagine one is soft Brexit and hard Brexit. As a Labour superfan, do you really back the option you don't want just to spite the Tories?
The problem with Labour at the moment is that its given too much power to its own members (as against MPs). These members have elected a leader that most voters do not want as PM, and driven the party far more leftwards than the voters want to go. This is why Labour will struggle to come to power again anytime soon.
Although he managed to be a lot ruder about Lord Adonis, which was a bonus.
Richard Nabavi backing a Labour Brexit.
Truly, this is the end of days.
Let's say at a push 1/3 are "core" Tories, 1/3 are "wet" Tories, and 1/3 are entryists.
Turnout in 2006 was about 66%. Of course for entryists it will be different both higher and lower.
If we take that, we get let's say 22,000 entryist votes. If they split 3:1 to a candidate, that's the equivalent of 11,000 votes.
The margin last time was 70,000. You would really need a knife-edge election to make any difference.
Personally I think it is a risk the Tories should take, sooner rather than later.
It would require an Act of Parliament, which the current Government would not grant. It relies on 10 DUP'ers and at least 80 die-hard Brexit Tory MPs. The opposition would prioritise bringing it down over supporting a Government policy that its own backbenches don't support to make law. So it would have to fall in a no confidence vote, first, resulting in a General Election. Which Labour would then probably "win".
I can't see how a second referendum, in autumn 2019, say, under a Corbyn minority/low majority Government (assuming he also grants one) on ambiguous Remain terms being won over the Heads of Terms May has negotiated that pipped to the post by 53% to 47%, say, would be anything but a disaster for the UK. It would poison relations for the UK in the EU, and divide the country very bitterly, for decades.
The best hope for Remainers (as I keep banging on about) is to either get the EU to grant the UK a new deal that addresses the concerns of the Leavers, or to try and shape the Brexit result and hope, in time, the arrangements speak for themselves.
Pat Buchanan always used to tell Nixon that the lower down the socio-economic scale you go the more you have to tell people what you feel and the higher up the scale you go the more you have to tell them what you think.
Fine tuning their message on that basis in the new culture wars is going to be impossible for the tories,
There won't be "Labour clubs" and Tory meetings like there used to be.
No party can even imitate the youth wings of the 80s.
But it would take Labour to go to China, so to speak.
*Ok, I can think of one, Priti Patel. But that's it.
When we voted in June 2016 we did not know what Brexit meant in reality. Soon we will. It is perfectly democratic to ask people whether they continue to want to leave the EU and move to this new arrangement.
Now I realise that there are lots of assumptions and ifs in this and that getting from where we are to this point is not easy etc. But there is nothing inherently wrong in wanting a vote on the new arrangement.
Indeed, isn’t it the mirror image of the vote which many say they wanted on Maastricht and Lisbon etc? Moving to a version of Brexit without clear support only risks storing up the same sort of resentments as agreeing to the various treaties did.
Whether Blair / Clegg et al are the right people to do this is another matter as Jones argues. Still, I thought Humphries was too quick to interrupt Blair this morning. There is a dilemma at the heart of what May is trying to do and fudging or ignoring it won’t work, not for long anyway. Blair is right to point it out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/3802
I think it is the enduring whiteness of Labour membership that surprises me most here, given my impression that Pakistani Asians have a strong representation amongst Labour councillors.
Actually, I would be happier with the latter than our current fudged membership position.
In the past parties used to progress MPs with some experience who could at least steer the realist/cynic approach so that policy could be enacted that works. These days the parties seem largely infested by clueless ideologues who put their beliefs above evidence or experts. Which is how we end up in this endless cycle of either failing to make a decision (Heathrow anyone?) or making a decision that's beyond stupid for stupid reasons (we can't afford to build Nuclear Power, but the French can thanks to a guaranteed 100% markup on power generated)
Brexit is merely the denouement of this trend. People want something. They don't know exactly what it is. They don't care either. But they want it, and woe betide anyone who gets in their way with questions about details as to how it would work. The abount of vacuous crap that has been written about how WTO would work is mind-blowing. Ignore the fact that the people who have to enact it say it would be a disaster with lots of details as to why and how, the same people keep banging on about how it'll be fine. Not contradicting the experts, just ignoring them.
Is ignorance bliss?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5234997
If you look at the graph I linked - Labour presided over the steepest increase in real terms spending since at least 1953. In 1997 4.3% of GDP on education, by 2010 it was 5.8%. That is a really big increase in anyone’s book.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/where-is-the-persecutedchristians-hashtag/
It will be the great Brexit betrayal.
But I think you’ve argued it well and I find myself unexpectedly agreeing with you.
You see that thats issue, it's never can be a fixed position. the EU has morphed time and time again from the 1970s onwards, changing it's status and it's powers. Whilst governments may have signed up to each change, the people haven't.
Now, the first time people have had a chance to say, 'hang on, we don't like this' we want out, you're planning on putting roadblock after roadblock in the way.
the referendum wasn't lost in 2016, it was lost time and time again over the last 30 years when politicans haven't listened to people.
91% of them back capital punishment for murder, 68% for terrorists, 41% for paedophiles, 23% for rapists and 13% for drug dealers
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/apr/27/ukcrime13
Mr. Slackbladder, said before many times, but Labour (and the Lib Dems) reneging upon the 2005 manifesto pledge for a referendum did massive damage to the pro-EU side here.
But others on here say that when it comes to picking a leader - the Tories prioritise a winner.
Is there much evidence for that - either from this research or elsewhere?
We are where we are. Brexit needs a hard headed effort at damage limitation. Remainers can do that intellectually because they never signed up to the agenda in the first place. Leavers can't. Damage limitation implies things will be worse than they were and they should be and it implies Leavers were wrong to suggest otherwise. Leavers cannot limit the damage nor can they deliver a successful Brexit. It's a mess.