Rumours that Johnson will put back the 21st unlocking stage...
Adam Brooks @EssexPR · 2h Then they face the anger of the Nation, this indicates they have no belief in the vaccine. It will signal that normality can just be pushed back every time scientists kick and scream on TV.
This will be unforgivable
If that happens Boris needs to go.
Having trawled a bit it’s no more than a discussion about a two week delay if the data takes a turn for the worse, and I assume that is not cases but deaths and hospitals.
The data would have to turn much, much worse for a delay to be justifiable.
Then if that happens its unlikely to be for two weeks.
I suggest the 1922 committee starts its engines though, just in case Johnson is tempted to roll us back from where we are and reimpose stuff.
Rumours that Johnson will put back the 21st unlocking stage...
Adam Brooks @EssexPR · 2h Then they face the anger of the Nation, this indicates they have no belief in the vaccine. It will signal that normality can just be pushed back every time scientists kick and scream on TV.
This will be unforgivable
If that happens Boris needs to go.
I really think that letters will go in to the '22 if he does.
Pointlessly if so. He would win any ballot of MPs.
His bosom buddy JRM made up a rule - nay, a 'constitutional norm' - when he lost the confidence vote against May, saying that she should resign because she didn't win by enough I guess. So Boris would need to be careful to win by enough.
Truss, Raab and Patel look underpriced in this market to me.
Risks face all of them in failing to get the politics right in office, but that applies to Rishi too - who is heavily overpriced IMHO.
I agree. After providing one tenth of the funding recommended to education today, I fear the Dishmeister will be disappointing plenty of other groups in the near future. Particularly if interest rates go up as seems highly probable. Summat a lot of folk only vaguely recall is possible.
Rumours that Johnson will put back the 21st unlocking stage...
Adam Brooks @EssexPR · 2h Then they face the anger of the Nation, this indicates they have no belief in the vaccine. It will signal that normality can just be pushed back every time scientists kick and scream on TV.
This will be unforgivable
If that happens Boris needs to go.
agreed, anything short of an even newer supper supper spreading variant that is at risk of ovewming the NHS and it must not be delayed.
I don't know who this Adam Brooks is or how reliable he has been in the past, but we have almost 3 weeks of data to come out, lots of time for cased to plato (and hopefully then fall)
being cynical, it might be an attempt to stop people like you and I calling for full reopening early. by manipulation us to say it should happen on planed time of the 21st
Watched the interview. My feeling was that it humanised him quite a bit and, speaking personally, made me think he is an impressive man to go from his background to where he is, via the career he's had. My fear is, his achievements won't necessarily be properly understood by the general viewing public and that it probably didn't change any minds. Still, he should keep going with this kind of thing and the attempt to reach people where they are is admirable. I keep seeing stuff online from the Labour left annoyed that he agreed to be interviewed by Morgan (Saint Jeremy would never stoop to this kind of thing) and that he would listen to Blair. The interview certainly annoyed some of the right people! That said, I am predisposed to him and think I'll probably vote Labour at the next general, so I am not neutral on this.
I haven’t watched it, but why do you say it was impressive to go from his background to become DPP? He went to a grammar school, did he not? It doesn’t seem out of the ordinary that he’d go on to have a good professional career.
Grammar school then private schooling (unclear whether state or family paid)
Interesting piece in this week's Newstatesman on Labour's destruction of the grammar schools in 70s and 80s and how it removed the ladder. Crosland and Williams.
But how has this changed over time? Is it just that the population of eg. Hartlepool has put on decades on their average age in a matter of a few years, or that the Tories have made serious inroads into a demographic "working class workers" that used to be nearly universally Labour?
Thanks for engaging.
There *has* been a shift from Lab to Tory since 2017 in this demographic. It’s just notable that a majority of lower income working voters STILL voted Labour in 2019 which is against current received opinion.
Secondly, Hartlepool has aged over time. The demographic mix has skewed even older than the general population because, in essence, younger people leave to find better jobs.
But hasn't migration of the young been a thing for decades now? My economics teacher in the Midlands in the late 70's had come down from Hartlepool. He told us back then it was a big thing. Nobody bright stayed up there (to those on here offended, that may have been a broad generalisation on his part - but he did get me an A at A-level!)
The last 25 years has seen this phenomenon increase significantly.
There used to be “decent” middle class jobs in places like Hartlepool. Not so much anymore.
And we've had a continuous expansion of Higher Education. It's always been the case that graduates are less "somewhere" than non-graduates, because people tend to leave home to go to University. But now a much higher proportion of young people end up as graduates.
Rumours that Johnson will put back the 21st unlocking stage...
Adam Brooks @EssexPR · 2h Then they face the anger of the Nation, this indicates they have no belief in the vaccine. It will signal that normality can just be pushed back every time scientists kick and scream on TV.
This will be unforgivable
If that happens Boris needs to go.
I really think that letters will go in to the '22 if he does.
Pointlessly if so. He would win any ballot of MPs.
His bosom buddy JRM made up a rule - nay, a 'constitutional norm' - when he lost the confidence vote against May, saying that she should resign because she didn't win by enough I guess. So Boris would need to be careful to win by enough.
He doesn't have "bosom buddies" in the parliamentary party. They support him out of self preservation.
Rumours that Johnson will put back the 21st unlocking stage...
Adam Brooks @EssexPR · 2h Then they face the anger of the Nation, this indicates they have no belief in the vaccine. It will signal that normality can just be pushed back every time scientists kick and scream on TV.
Tournament warm up games are as useful as pre season friendlies for predicting how a team will fare. Coaches never pick the starting line up, and who wants to commit and risk injury before the tournament (as TAA seems to have done?)
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
Everything that is wrong with the Southgate England team....all that attacking talent, and it is slow slow slow, bugger all chances, nick a goal.
If you only saw most of the England players only play for England you would be shocked how they play for their clubs. Grealish drives to defenders, trick, flick, sits them down....nothing like that for England.
The good teams will score 2 against England dodgy defence, and England won't be able to score 2 or 3 in response.
Rumours that Johnson will put back the 21st unlocking stage...
Adam Brooks @EssexPR · 2h Then they face the anger of the Nation, this indicates they have no belief in the vaccine. It will signal that normality can just be pushed back every time scientists kick and scream on TV.
This will be unforgivable
If that happens Boris needs to go.
I have to say, trying to be as objective as possible, the priority must be to continue the vaccination rollout and get as many as possible doubly vaccinated.
Now, it gets difficult as we consider the unvaccinated - there will be those who, for medical reasons, cannot be vaccinated. We must do all we can to help those very few and be sympathetic toward their situation.
As for those who refuse the vaccine for other reasons - I come back to the general point it is one of, if not, the primary responsibility of Government to protect its citizens irrespective of whether said citizens choose to protect themselves.
As has been debated on here many times, those who, in spite of the overwhelming medical evidence to the contrary, continue to pursue lifestyles and make life choices which actively are self-harming are still entitled to treatment, help and support. If we apply that principle to addicts for example, should we not apply the same to those who choose not to be vaccinated?
If I choose not to take the vaccine, catch the virus and become seriously ill, am I to be denied hospital treatment because of the conscious decision I took?
Someone once famously stated they were voting Labour "to protect the unfortunate from the tyranny of the fortunate". To what extent, if any, do we need to protect the unvaccinated from the tyranny of the vaccinated?
That's not an argument for the perpetuation of restrictions but I'm concerned there's an undercurrent developing those who aren't vaccinated which isn't pleasant.
Rumours that Johnson will put back the 21st unlocking stage...
Adam Brooks @EssexPR · 2h Then they face the anger of the Nation, this indicates they have no belief in the vaccine. It will signal that normality can just be pushed back every time scientists kick and scream on TV.
This will be unforgivable
Tories sub 30% incoming....
The source story has the crucial caveat “if the data significantly worsens”. Very important. No sign that it will.
But how has this changed over time? Is it just that the population of eg. Hartlepool has put on decades on their average age in a matter of a few years, or that the Tories have made serious inroads into a demographic "working class workers" that used to be nearly universally Labour?
More of the first than a lot of people realise. Crudely, eighteen year olds leave Redwallton to go to Uni. Once they leave, they tend not to go back; they find their life-partners and get jobs in cities. Why the hell would they go back?
The Red Wall seats that have flipped tend to be either relatively remote, or places that don't really make economic sense as places now there's no coal mining. A lot of those places have had huge changes in the age profile. See the tables in this article;
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
And yet, if there was no retired vote, Labour would be in government.
So yes, it is the retired propping the Conservatives up.
As I understand it, the passion for Tory voting in this cohort is higher than pretty much ever.
Anyway my point is this. We spend a lot of time, and commentators write many pieces, about appealing to the left behind.
It may be simpler. Labour holds no appeal for old people (especially old English people) and they happen to be the key voting bloc.
Everything that is wrong with the Southgate England team....all that attacking talent, and it is slow slow slow, bugger all chances, nick a goal.
If you only saw most of the England players only play for England you would be shocked how they play for their clubs. Grealish drives to defenders, trick, flick, sits them down....nothing like that for England.
The good teams will score 2 against England dodgy defence, and England won't be able to score 2 or 3 in response.
Not sure you can read so much into a warm up game when everyone is reluctant to go full throttle and risk getting injured. (Yes, I know, Trent…)
In fact, Labour beat the Tories in EVERY income group workers up to £100k.
I find this quite astonishing, given Corbyn.
Well, we don't know how that breaks down by age (low income groups might be heavily dominated by voters under 35), the differences are modest as you go up to £100k, and I think BES is based on voter recall which can be unreliable.
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
The left don’t consider poor pensioners to be working class anymore as including them means the working class are voting Tory and voted for Brexit .
As an aside, Covid 19 seems a strange virus to emerge from gain-of-function research.
That would result in either a more infectious, or a more deadly disease.
Why Covid19 has been so incredibly effective at spreading around the world has been for almost the opposite reason: it takes a considerable time after initial infection before there is enough virus in a person's system to be detectable.
The result of this is that carriers have spread far and wide, without realising they're carriers, and without being able to be detected as carriers.
This is right. Civilian gain of function research has been done primarily in relation to flu and other known zoonotic diseases to help predict where the next human-infecting strain will come from. Generally this has related to transmission and host range, not to increased morbidity or mortality.
Generally, gain of function relates to a number of changes: 1. change of host range 2. change of transmissibility 3. change in antigenicity (evasion of existing immune responses and vaccines) 4. change in virulence
It is the first three that most interest the Peter Daszaks - and the Anthony Faucis - of the world.
Great. They’re making brand new viruses that can evade vaccines. Brilliant.
Flu does that every season, as do many enveloped viruses.
‘Gain of function’ research is over. Killed by Covid
I certainly hope so. It was a deranged thing to be doing in the first place.
Rumours that Johnson will put back the 21st unlocking stage...
Adam Brooks @EssexPR · 2h Then they face the anger of the Nation, this indicates they have no belief in the vaccine. It will signal that normality can just be pushed back every time scientists kick and scream on TV.
This will be unforgivable
If that happens Boris needs to go.
I have to say, trying to be as objective as possible, the priority must be to continue the vaccination rollout and get as many as possible doubly vaccinated.
Now, it gets difficult as we consider the unvaccinated - there will be those who, for medical reasons, cannot be vaccinated. We must do all we can to help those very few and be sympathetic toward their situation.
As for those who refuse the vaccine for other reasons - I come back to the general point it is one of, if not, the primary responsibility of Government to protect its citizens irrespective of whether said citizens choose to protect themselves.
As has been debated on here many times, those who, in spite of the overwhelming medical evidence to the contrary, continue to pursue lifestyles and make life choices which actively are self-harming are still entitled to treatment, help and support. If we apply that principle to addicts for example, should we not apply the same to those who choose not to be vaccinated?
If I choose not to take the vaccine, catch the virus and become seriously ill, am I to be denied hospital treatment because of the conscious decision I took?
Someone once famously stated they were voting Labour "to protect the unfortunate from the tyranny of the fortunate". To what extent, if any, do we need to protect the unvaccinated from the tyranny of the vaccinated?
That's not an argument for the perpetuation of restrictions but I'm concerned there's an undercurrent developing those who aren't vaccinated which isn't pleasant.
Of course if people get sick they should get treated.
So what tyranny of the vaccinated?
If the vaccinated were to compel the unvaccinated to get vaccinated against their wishes then that is a tyranny. But letting people make their own decisions is not a tyranny.
Everything that is wrong with the Southgate England team....all that attacking talent, and it is slow slow slow, bugger all chances, nick a goal.
If you only saw most of the England players only play for England you would be shocked how they play for their clubs. Grealish drives to defenders, trick, flick, sits them down....nothing like that for England.
The good teams will score 2 against England dodgy defence, and England won't be able to score 2 or 3 in response.
Not sure you can read so much into a warm up game when everyone is reluctant to go full throttle and risk getting injured. (Yes, I know, Trent…)
It was exactly like every other game under Southgate.
I fully understand why we had such an approach in the world cup, we didn't have the attacking talent. But since then, we never see the best of Sancho, Rashford, Sterling, etc etc etc when playing for England.
5 at the back, 2 defensive midfielders, sideways sideways sideways sideways.
I noted the disproportionately high house price rises in the north of England and the Midlands and wondered, of we are seeing a phenomenon similar to that in the USA where conservative-minded people are leaving liberal states such as New York and California for the likes of Texas and Florida.
Is there any evidence we could be seeing Conservative-minded voters leaving the south and trying to settle in the new heartlands of the north and midlands with the advantages remote working provides?
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
The left don’t consider poor pensioners to be working class anymore as including them means the working class are voting Tory and voted for Brexit .
Your persistence on this point indicates you have some flesh in the game.
I know you’re not retired yourself, so I assume it is because you need the elderly vote to lend some kind of popular legitimacy to your anti-immigrant views.
Nadhim Zahawi on @itvpeston re roadmap: "The next 12 days are going to be really important to see what the virus is doing. Remember, we've got a very large scale surveillance infrastructure in place both in terms of waste water, surveillance and of course large scale testing."
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
And yet, if there was no retired vote, Labour would be in government.
So yes, it is the retired propping the Conservatives up.
As I understand it, the passion for Tory voting in this cohort is higher than pretty much ever.
Anyway my point is this. We spend a lot of time, and commentators write many pieces, about appealing to the left behind.
It may be simpler. Labour holds no appeal for old people (especially old English people) and they happen to be the key voting bloc.
You're back to huge simplifications again.
Once people own their own home, own their own cars, start their own families, and live in the Shires, more of them tend to vote Conservative than not.
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
The left don’t consider poor pensioners to be working class anymore as including them means the working class are voting Tory and voted for Brexit .
Your persistence on this point indicates you have some flesh in the game.
I know you’re not retired yourself, so I assume it is because you need the elderly vote to lend some kind of popular legitimacy to your anti-immigrant views.
Those who are 39 and older are not retired either.
Are you including Students in those who are "working" while excluding those who work over 65?
I noted the disproportionately high house price rises in the north of England and the Midlands and wondered, of we are seeing a phenomenon similar to that in the USA where conservative-minded people are leaving liberal states such as New York and California for the likes of Texas and Florida.
Is there any evidence we could be seeing Conservative-minded voters leaving the south and trying to settle in the new heartlands of the north and midlands with the advantages remote working provides?
I doubt this very much.
But, also, I have no theory for why house prices in the north and midlands are booming, when we’ve been told it’s all about Londoners moving to Gloucestershire and Devon.
What *is* driving house prices in the north and midlands?
Rumours that Johnson will put back the 21st unlocking stage...
Adam Brooks @EssexPR · 2h Then they face the anger of the Nation, this indicates they have no belief in the vaccine. It will signal that normality can just be pushed back every time scientists kick and scream on TV.
This will be unforgivable
If that happens Boris needs to go.
I have to say, trying to be as objective as possible, the priority must be to continue the vaccination rollout and get as many as possible doubly vaccinated.
Now, it gets difficult as we consider the unvaccinated - there will be those who, for medical reasons, cannot be vaccinated. We must do all we can to help those very few and be sympathetic toward their situation.
As for those who refuse the vaccine for other reasons - I come back to the general point it is one of, if not, the primary responsibility of Government to protect its citizens irrespective of whether said citizens choose to protect themselves.
As has been debated on here many times, those who, in spite of the overwhelming medical evidence to the contrary, continue to pursue lifestyles and make life choices which actively are self-harming are still entitled to treatment, help and support. If we apply that principle to addicts for example, should we not apply the same to those who choose not to be vaccinated?
If I choose not to take the vaccine, catch the virus and become seriously ill, am I to be denied hospital treatment because of the conscious decision I took?
Someone once famously stated they were voting Labour "to protect the unfortunate from the tyranny of the fortunate". To what extent, if any, do we need to protect the unvaccinated from the tyranny of the vaccinated?
That's not an argument for the perpetuation of restrictions but I'm concerned there's an undercurrent developing those who aren't vaccinated which isn't pleasant.
Of course if people get sick they should get treated.
So what tyranny of the vaccinated?
If the vaccinated were to compel the unvaccinated to get vaccinated against their wishes then that is a tyranny. But letting people make their own decisions is not a tyranny.
By and large anyone not vaccinated now has either chosen not to be vaccinated, or is not really being offered vaccinations for their own health (the risk to u30s is pretty small). So who is stretching out restrictions to extend vaccinations actually protecting?
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
The left don’t consider poor pensioners to be working class anymore as including them means the working class are voting Tory and voted for Brexit .
Your persistence on this point indicates you have some flesh in the game.
I know you’re not retired yourself, so I assume it is because you need the elderly vote to lend some kind of popular legitimacy to your anti-immigrant views.
If you want to peddle nonsense to make yourself feel better be my guest, I’ll just point out the absurdities as and when I see fit
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
The left don’t consider poor pensioners to be working class anymore as including them means the working class are voting Tory and voted for Brexit .
Your persistence on this point indicates you have some flesh in the game.
I know you’re not retired yourself, so I assume it is because you need the elderly vote to lend some kind of popular legitimacy to your anti-immigrant views.
Those who are 39 and older are not retired either.
Are you including Students in those who are "working" while excluding those who work over 65?
No (at least to the first question). And these are not my figures they come from the British Election Study.
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
The left don’t consider poor pensioners to be working class anymore as including them means the working class are voting Tory and voted for Brexit .
Yes, it strikes me as figleaf seeking to avoid having to engage with the very real issues of disconnection from their traditional base.
If you look at Conservative leads for low-education to mid-education voters in the YouGov poll post GE2019 they are overwhelming.
Would it make sense for a lab to engineer a dangerous virus without also finding a antidote? Or should one regard the general populace as expendable and not admit to the possession of a antidote?
This is why it would not make sense as part of a BW programme. Rule number 1, have protection for your own troops.
I hesitate to appeal to authority but the estimable SeanT, once a villein of this fief, posited the idea the Chinese made this as a bioweapon and intended to make a vaccine - but the bug leaked far too early.
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
And yet, if there was no retired vote, Labour would be in government.
So yes, it is the retired propping the Conservatives up.
As I understand it, the passion for Tory voting in this cohort is higher than pretty much ever.
Anyway my point is this. We spend a lot of time, and commentators write many pieces, about appealing to the left behind.
It may be simpler. Labour holds no appeal for old people (especially old English people) and they happen to be the key voting bloc.
You're back to huge simplifications again.
Once people own their own home, own their own cars, start their own families, and live in the Shires, more of them tend to vote Conservative than not.
I’m not disputing that.
You seem blithely uninterested at the very stark age divide that has developed in voting preference, and the interesting implications that has on governments deciding whether or not to promote economy-enhancing policy.
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
The left don’t consider poor pensioners to be working class anymore as including them means the working class are voting Tory and voted for Brexit .
Your persistence on this point indicates you have some flesh in the game.
I know you’re not retired yourself, so I assume it is because you need the elderly vote to lend some kind of popular legitimacy to your anti-immigrant views.
If you think the route back to electoral popularity for Labour is to epouse pro-immigration views then I have a bridge to sell you.
I noted the disproportionately high house price rises in the north of England and the Midlands and wondered, of we are seeing a phenomenon similar to that in the USA where conservative-minded people are leaving liberal states such as New York and California for the likes of Texas and Florida.
Is there any evidence we could be seeing Conservative-minded voters leaving the south and trying to settle in the new heartlands of the north and midlands with the advantages remote working provides?
I doubt this very much.
But, also, I have no theory for why house prices in the north and midlands are booming, when we’ve been told it’s all about Londoners moving to Gloucestershire and Devon.
What *is* driving house prices in the north and midlands?
Affordability. And full employment. Young people without degrees are able to find work locally. This has been true for over a decade. Many lived with their parents, so were able to save a deposit. Now they are able to buy. Lockdown with their parents being a major motivator.
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
The left don’t consider poor pensioners to be working class anymore as including them means the working class are voting Tory and voted for Brexit .
Your persistence on this point indicates you have some flesh in the game.
I know you’re not retired yourself, so I assume it is because you need the elderly vote to lend some kind of popular legitimacy to your anti-immigrant views.
Those who are 39 and older are not retired either.
Are you including Students in those who are "working" while excluding those who work over 65?
No (at least to the first question). And these are not my figures they come from the British Election Study.
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
The left don’t consider poor pensioners to be working class anymore as including them means the working class are voting Tory and voted for Brexit .
Your persistence on this point indicates you have some flesh in the game.
I know you’re not retired yourself, so I assume it is because you need the elderly vote to lend some kind of popular legitimacy to your anti-immigrant views.
Those who are 39 and older are not retired either.
Are you including Students in those who are "working" while excluding those who work over 65?
No (at least to the first question). And these are not my figures they come from the British Election Study.
Do you have a source for those claims?
Didn't the BES get the percentages of the vote wrong?
The Republican candidates for mayor face a steep climb when it comes to winning the general election in November, but they're at least making the primary interesting.
Their first live televised debate Wednesday was heavy on theatrics, finger-pointing and personal attacks. "Curtis, you're a clown,” said Fernando Mateo. “And you're making a mockery of this very important primary."
The debate did take on a circus-like atmosphere, as Mateo and Curtis Sliwa repeatedly went out of their way to tear each other down. Each tried to frame himself as the true Republican and true supporter of law enforcement.
Mateo said of Sliwa: "He is partly responsible for bail reform and defund the police because he supported and endorsed every single Democrat that voted for those laws."
In response, Sliwa pointed to remarks Mateo had made after La Marina, the Inwood restaurant he co-owned, was shut down by police. "You publicly said on Hot 97, the morning radio program, that all those cops responsible for that, they should have their heads cut off like snakes,” Sliwa said.
"All of a sudden,” he added, “you've discovered you have love for the police."
Both candidates support adding police officers, including on the subway. Sliwa points to his experience as founder of the Guardian Angels.
"You don't ride the subways,” he told Mateo. “I ride the subways every day."
Mateo later shot back: "Curtis Sliwa is a subway rider. That's all he knows how to do, communicate with the subway homeless people, because that's what he takes pride in. And he communicates with his 13 cats and his 14 litter boxes in his house."
The candidates actually agreed on many of the policy questions posed, including on education, street space and speed cameras. But Mateo — an advocate for cab drivers and bodega owners — has more closely tied himself to Trump, even falsely stating Trump won the November election.
Both men broke debate rules and brought out props: Mateo his “Trumpy Bear" stuffed animal, and Sliwa a photograph of Mateo posing with Mayor Bill de Blasio.
Mateo raised money for the mayor, but on Wednesday he defended his fundraising, saying many business people donate across party lines.
As for Sliwa, he opposed Trump and is a relative newcomer to the Republican party, as Mateo pointed out. "Curtis is a clown,” Mateo said. “I think his red beret is too tight on him. He never voted for Trump. He never supported the president that really backed law enforcement." Sliwa clarified: "I never voted for Hillary. I never voted for Joe Biden. I went independent."
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
What you want to see is a poll of working-age population only that is broken down by class. I don't think the data you cite is sufficient for your claim.
Article contains such data. Read and let the scales fall from your eyes.
Thanks, I was only going by what you had posted at the time, which did not have a link to the article in question.
Nadhim Zahawi on @itvpeston re roadmap: "The next 12 days are going to be really important to see what the virus is doing. Remember, we've got a very large scale surveillance infrastructure in place both in terms of waste water, surveillance and of course large scale testing."
That's all very well, but the case for raising restrictions is not based primarily on spread of the virus. It is based on a belief/evidence that a spread of the virus will not impact significantly on levels of serious illness and death (and not beyond any number of other public health threats that we would never have considered even the restrictions in place now, let alone what we have endured over the past year). Not sure what any of that has to do with waste water, "surveillance" or large scale testing.
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
The left don’t consider poor pensioners to be working class anymore as including them means the working class are voting Tory and voted for Brexit .
Your persistence on this point indicates you have some flesh in the game.
I know you’re not retired yourself, so I assume it is because you need the elderly vote to lend some kind of popular legitimacy to your anti-immigrant views.
If you think the route back to electoral popularity for Labour is to epouse pro-immigration views then I have a bridge to sell you.
I haven’t said it is?
I merely note that Isam seems to be triggered by the data I present, and am speculating as to why.
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
It's very clear:
The callow, the inexperienced and the immature - they vote overwhelmingly Labour.
While those on the verge of senility, those with early onset Alzheimers, and those with rose tinted views on the British Empire - they vote overwhelmingly Conservative.
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
The left don’t consider poor pensioners to be working class anymore as including them means the working class are voting Tory and voted for Brexit .
Yes, it strikes me as figleaf seeking to avoid having to engage with the very real issues of disconnection from their traditional base.
If you look at Conservative leads for low-education to mid-education voters in the YouGov poll post GE2019 they are overwhelming.
Except the low education is also highly highly correlated with age. My dad left school at 16 when it was not unusual...
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
And yet, if there was no retired vote, Labour would be in government.
So yes, it is the retired propping the Conservatives up.
As I understand it, the passion for Tory voting in this cohort is higher than pretty much ever.
Anyway my point is this. We spend a lot of time, and commentators write many pieces, about appealing to the left behind.
It may be simpler. Labour holds no appeal for old people (especially old English people) and they happen to be the key voting bloc.
You're back to huge simplifications again.
Once people own their own home, own their own cars, start their own families, and live in the Shires, more of them tend to vote Conservative than not.
I’m not disputing that.
You seem blithely uninterested at the very stark age divide that has developed in voting preference, and the interesting implications that has on governments deciding whether or not to promote economy-enhancing policy.
No, I'm not uninterested in it (still less blithely, and have said it's an issue upthread) but I draw different conclusions to you.
The movement won't be inexorably in one direction either - I could see some of the existing Labour-heavy coherts moving in the opposite direction in 15-20 years time, for example.
Rumours that Johnson will put back the 21st unlocking stage...
Adam Brooks @EssexPR · 2h Then they face the anger of the Nation, this indicates they have no belief in the vaccine. It will signal that normality can just be pushed back every time scientists kick and scream on TV.
I noted the disproportionately high house price rises in the north of England and the Midlands and wondered, of we are seeing a phenomenon similar to that in the USA where conservative-minded people are leaving liberal states such as New York and California for the likes of Texas and Florida.
Is there any evidence we could be seeing Conservative-minded voters leaving the south and trying to settle in the new heartlands of the north and midlands with the advantages remote working provides?
I doubt this very much.
But, also, I have no theory for why house prices in the north and midlands are booming, when we’ve been told it’s all about Londoners moving to Gloucestershire and Devon.
What *is* driving house prices in the north and midlands?
while i don't know, my guess might be, asset prices of most things are going up around the would, this naturally would include house prices, so could there be a UK wide rise in prises, that is Offset by a decline in London where some people have/are moving out to work remotely, and yes most of those are going to Gloucstcher, ect, but there is enough new building here to offset. ?
Could there be a lot of rich people who have saved money in the pandemic by avoiding restraints, who are now spending that on buy-to-lets in there northern places?
The FT story doesn’t even say that the government is planning to delay two weeks, in fact it suggests they are very keen to go with 21 June. It is based on a single briefing from a single source who is speculating that 5 July could be a fallback option. It’s all a lot of nothing much.
The FT story doesn’t even say that the government is planning to delay two weeks, in fact it suggests they are very keen to go with 21 June. It is based on a single briefing from a single source who is speculating that 5 July could be a fallback option. It’s all a lot of nothing much.
If only there was a term for when people misreport things.....
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
The left don’t consider poor pensioners to be working class anymore as including them means the working class are voting Tory and voted for Brexit .
Your persistence on this point indicates you have some flesh in the game.
I know you’re not retired yourself, so I assume it is because you need the elderly vote to lend some kind of popular legitimacy to your anti-immigrant views.
If you think the route back to electoral popularity for Labour is to epouse pro-immigration views then I have a bridge to sell you.
I haven’t said it is?
I merely note that Isam seems to be triggered by the data I present, and am speculating as to why.
You also seem a bit touchy about it.
No. But you seem to be very touchy about anyone who doesn't take your black and white conclusions about the data at face value.
It doesn't exclude Students, nor include workers past 65. Almost as if it wasn't designed to poll workers and @Gardenwalker is just pushing his own agenda. 🤦♂️
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
The left don’t consider poor pensioners to be working class anymore as including them means the working class are voting Tory and voted for Brexit .
Yes, it strikes me as figleaf seeking to avoid having to engage with the very real issues of disconnection from their traditional base.
If you look at Conservative leads for low-education to mid-education voters in the YouGov poll post GE2019 they are overwhelming.
Except the low education is also highly highly correlated with age. My dad left school at 16 when it was not unusual...
To an extent it is but 50% of young people still don't go to university.
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
And yet, if there was no retired vote, Labour would be in government.
So yes, it is the retired propping the Conservatives up.
As I understand it, the passion for Tory voting in this cohort is higher than pretty much ever.
Anyway my point is this. We spend a lot of time, and commentators write many pieces, about appealing to the left behind.
It may be simpler. Labour holds no appeal for old people (especially old English people) and they happen to be the key voting bloc.
You're back to huge simplifications again.
Once people own their own home, own their own cars, start their own families, and live in the Shires, more of them tend to vote Conservative than not.
I’m not disputing that.
You seem blithely uninterested at the very stark age divide that has developed in voting preference, and the interesting implications that has on governments deciding whether or not to promote economy-enhancing policy.
No, I'm not uninterested in it (still less blithely, and have said it's an issue upthread) but I draw different conclusions to you.
The movement won't be inexorably in one direction either - I could see some of the existing Labour-heavy coherts moving in the opposite direction in 15-20 years time, for example.
In the media there is lots of talk about the Scottish nationalists, about Labour losing the red wall, about Brexit changing voting patterns - but the biggest change in voting patterns, the electoral triumph of the old over the young, a fracture in voting patterns that must surely reflect other divides in our society between the age groups - this change does not receive nearly as much notice or comment.
I noted the disproportionately high house price rises in the north of England and the Midlands and wondered, of we are seeing a phenomenon similar to that in the USA where conservative-minded people are leaving liberal states such as New York and California for the likes of Texas and Florida.
Is there any evidence we could be seeing Conservative-minded voters leaving the south and trying to settle in the new heartlands of the north and midlands with the advantages remote working provides?
I doubt this very much.
But, also, I have no theory for why house prices in the north and midlands are booming, when we’ve been told it’s all about Londoners moving to Gloucestershire and Devon.
What *is* driving house prices in the north and midlands?
I noted the disproportionately high house price rises in the north of England and the Midlands and wondered, of we are seeing a phenomenon similar to that in the USA where conservative-minded people are leaving liberal states such as New York and California for the likes of Texas and Florida.
Is there any evidence we could be seeing Conservative-minded voters leaving the south and trying to settle in the new heartlands of the north and midlands with the advantages remote working provides?
I doubt this very much.
But, also, I have no theory for why house prices in the north and midlands are booming, when we’ve been told it’s all about Londoners moving to Gloucestershire and Devon.
What *is* driving house prices in the north and midlands?
Yes, I was puzzled by this.
I suspect there is a large amount of anecdata about Londoners moving to Gloucestershire and Devon - people who move there tend to be visible to people who write articles about it in broadsheet newspapers. But they aren't necessarily representative.
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
Yes, I think so. For GE 2019 I was looking at ageing trends in each constituency over the decades. Constituencies like Hartlepool with a declining absolute number of young people trend strongly Conservative, those with increasing absolute numbers of young are increasingly Labour. It will be interesting to update the data with the new Census.
The bad news for Labour is that the country will increasingly age over the next decade before stabilising. We live in a Gerontocracy.
The government is facing a surprise rebellion next week that could force it to reverse its cuts to the foreign aid budget, the BBC has learned.
I read a couple of weeks ago that opponents of the cuts thought that they had the numbers to defeat the Government - and were waiting for a suitable bill to which they could attach an amendment, rather than challenging in the courts (the latter being why the Govt were trying to portray as a "temporary" move not breaching the law)
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
The left don’t consider poor pensioners to be working class anymore as including them means the working class are voting Tory and voted for Brexit .
Your persistence on this point indicates you have some flesh in the game.
I know you’re not retired yourself, so I assume it is because you need the elderly vote to lend some kind of popular legitimacy to your anti-immigrant views.
If you think the route back to electoral popularity for Labour is to epouse pro-immigration views then I have a bridge to sell you.
I haven’t said it is?
I merely note that Isam seems to be triggered by the data I present, and am speculating as to why.
You also seem a bit touchy about it.
No. But you seem to be very touchy about anyone who doesn't take your black and white conclusions about the data at face value.
If I’m touchy it is because while some posters seem interested in what look to be counter-intuitive findings, others use it as lever to spout bolleaux about “the left”.
If all this board is good for is moaning about “the left” or “the right”, it is not v interesting.
Yes, that’s literally the article I posted. Well done for, er, re-posting it.
I guess we’ll have to take Philip “Guru” Thompson’s view that it is dodgy over the British Election Study’s.
No I am saying that @Gardenwalker and the New Statesman's spin is dodgy, not the BES.
Please find me a single citation from the BES referring to Students as "workers" as opposed to "working age". I doubt they're that stupid, unlike some others.
Nadhim Zahawi on @itvpeston re roadmap: "The next 12 days are going to be really important to see what the virus is doing. Remember, we've got a very large scale surveillance infrastructure in place both in terms of waste water, surveillance and of course large scale testing."
The FT story doesn’t even say that the government is planning to delay two weeks, in fact it suggests they are very keen to go with 21 June. It is based on a single briefing from a single source who is speculating that 5 July could be a fallback option. It’s all a lot of nothing much.
The final decision on 21st June will not be announced until 14th June. That leaves us with another 12 days to fill with meaningless speculation. It's what the media do best.
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
And yet, if there was no retired vote, Labour would be in government.
So yes, it is the retired propping the Conservatives up.
As I understand it, the passion for Tory voting in this cohort is higher than pretty much ever.
Anyway my point is this. We spend a lot of time, and commentators write many pieces, about appealing to the left behind.
It may be simpler. Labour holds no appeal for old people (especially old English people) and they happen to be the key voting bloc.
You're back to huge simplifications again.
Once people own their own home, own their own cars, start their own families, and live in the Shires, more of them tend to vote Conservative than not.
I’m not disputing that.
You seem blithely uninterested at the very stark age divide that has developed in voting preference, and the interesting implications that has on governments deciding whether or not to promote economy-enhancing policy.
No, I'm not uninterested in it (still less blithely, and have said it's an issue upthread) but I draw different conclusions to you.
The movement won't be inexorably in one direction either - I could see some of the existing Labour-heavy coherts moving in the opposite direction in 15-20 years time, for example.
In the media there is lots of talk about the Scottish nationalists, about Labour losing the red wall, about Brexit changing voting patterns - but the biggest change in voting patterns, the electoral triumph of the old over the young, a fracture in voting patterns that must surely reflect other divides in our society between the age groups - this change does not receive nearly as much notice or comment.
Sure, but when it’s introduced by someone who has mistaken ‘working age’ for ‘working class’ the whole debate falls at the first fence
The Republican candidates for mayor face a steep climb when it comes to winning the general election in November, but they're at least making the primary interesting.
Their first live televised debate Wednesday was heavy on theatrics, finger-pointing and personal attacks. "Curtis, you're a clown,” said Fernando Mateo. “And you're making a mockery of this very important primary."
The debate did take on a circus-like atmosphere, as Mateo and Curtis Sliwa repeatedly went out of their way to tear each other down. Each tried to frame himself as the true Republican and true supporter of law enforcement.
Mateo said of Sliwa: "He is partly responsible for bail reform and defund the police because he supported and endorsed every single Democrat that voted for those laws."
In response, Sliwa pointed to remarks Mateo had made after La Marina, the Inwood restaurant he co-owned, was shut down by police. "You publicly said on Hot 97, the morning radio program, that all those cops responsible for that, they should have their heads cut off like snakes,” Sliwa said.
"All of a sudden,” he added, “you've discovered you have love for the police."
Both candidates support adding police officers, including on the subway. Sliwa points to his experience as founder of the Guardian Angels.
"You don't ride the subways,” he told Mateo. “I ride the subways every day."
Mateo later shot back: "Curtis Sliwa is a subway rider. That's all he knows how to do, communicate with the subway homeless people, because that's what he takes pride in. And he communicates with his 13 cats and his 14 litter boxes in his house."
The candidates actually agreed on many of the policy questions posed, including on education, street space and speed cameras. But Mateo — an advocate for cab drivers and bodega owners — has more closely tied himself to Trump, even falsely stating Trump won the November election.
Both men broke debate rules and brought out props: Mateo his “Trumpy Bear" stuffed animal, and Sliwa a photograph of Mateo posing with Mayor Bill de Blasio.
Mateo raised money for the mayor, but on Wednesday he defended his fundraising, saying many business people donate across party lines.
As for Sliwa, he opposed Trump and is a relative newcomer to the Republican party, as Mateo pointed out. "Curtis is a clown,” Mateo said. “I think his red beret is too tight on him. He never voted for Trump. He never supported the president that really backed law enforcement." Sliwa clarified: "I never voted for Hillary. I never voted for Joe Biden. I went independent."
Calling someone a clown is considered serious political analysis in the UK. Ask some of the posters on here.
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
The left don’t consider poor pensioners to be working class anymore as including them means the working class are voting Tory and voted for Brexit .
Yes, it strikes me as figleaf seeking to avoid having to engage with the very real issues of disconnection from their traditional base.
If you look at Conservative leads for low-education to mid-education voters in the YouGov poll post GE2019 they are overwhelming.
Except the low education is also highly highly correlated with age. My dad left school at 16 when it was not unusual...
To an extent it is but 50% of young people still don't go to university.
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
The left don’t consider poor pensioners to be working class anymore as including them means the working class are voting Tory and voted for Brexit .
Your persistence on this point indicates you have some flesh in the game.
I know you’re not retired yourself, so I assume it is because you need the elderly vote to lend some kind of popular legitimacy to your anti-immigrant views.
If you think the route back to electoral popularity for Labour is to epouse pro-immigration views then I have a bridge to sell you.
I haven’t said it is?
I merely note that Isam seems to be triggered by the data I present, and am speculating as to why.
You also seem a bit touchy about it.
No. But you seem to be very touchy about anyone who doesn't take your black and white conclusions about the data at face value.
If I’m touchy it is because while some posters seem interested in what look to be counter-intuitive findings, others use it as lever to spout bolleaux about “the left”.
If all this board is good for is moaning about “the left” or “the right”, it is not v interesting.
Sure if you and the New Statesman redefine "workers" as "all people over 18 excluding those of retirement age" then you have a figure.
If by "workers" you included over 65 workers and excluded students and the unemployed you'd have a very different figure.
The FT story doesn’t even say that the government is planning to delay two weeks, in fact it suggests they are very keen to go with 21 June. It is based on a single briefing from a single source who is speculating that 5 July could be a fallback option. It’s all a lot of nothing much.
The final decision on 21st June will not be announced until 14th June. That leaves us with another 12 days to fill with meaningless speculation. It's what the media do best.
Zero Covidians will be on again tomorrow, morning, noon and night.
I noted the disproportionately high house price rises in the north of England and the Midlands and wondered, of we are seeing a phenomenon similar to that in the USA where conservative-minded people are leaving liberal states such as New York and California for the likes of Texas and Florida.
Is there any evidence we could be seeing Conservative-minded voters leaving the south and trying to settle in the new heartlands of the north and midlands with the advantages remote working provides?
It is important that there is a Waitrose which does not seem to be much represented in the red wall seats.
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
And yet, if there was no retired vote, Labour would be in government.
So yes, it is the retired propping the Conservatives up.
As I understand it, the passion for Tory voting in this cohort is higher than pretty much ever.
Anyway my point is this. We spend a lot of time, and commentators write many pieces, about appealing to the left behind.
It may be simpler. Labour holds no appeal for old people (especially old English people) and they happen to be the key voting bloc.
You're back to huge simplifications again.
Once people own their own home, own their own cars, start their own families, and live in the Shires, more of them tend to vote Conservative than not.
I’m not disputing that.
You seem blithely uninterested at the very stark age divide that has developed in voting preference, and the interesting implications that has on governments deciding whether or not to promote economy-enhancing policy.
No, I'm not uninterested in it (still less blithely, and have said it's an issue upthread) but I draw different conclusions to you.
The movement won't be inexorably in one direction either - I could see some of the existing Labour-heavy coherts moving in the opposite direction in 15-20 years time, for example.
In the media there is lots of talk about the Scottish nationalists, about Labour losing the red wall, about Brexit changing voting patterns - but the biggest change in voting patterns, the electoral triumph of the old over the young, a fracture in voting patterns that must surely reflect other divides in our society between the age groups - this change does not receive nearly as much notice or comment.
True, and I suspect it started with student loans, sky high housing costs and was turbo-boosted by a values schism over Brexit.
My experience of under 30s (talking to them in real life, and not on social media) is that they are a bit Wokey but aren't really socialist; fundamentally, they want choice, a good job, their own home, and a nice, stable and inclusive society.
Also, once you get them off social media, they are fundamentally rational and even convinceable on the most sensitive subjects.
Yes, that’s literally the article I posted. Well done for, er, re-posting it.
I guess we’ll have to take Philip “Guru” Thompson’s view that it is dodgy over the British Election Study’s.
No I am saying that @Gardenwalker and the New Statesman's spin is dodgy, not the BES.
Please find me a single citation from the BES referring to Students as "workers" as opposed to "working age". I doubt they're that stupid, unlike some others.
The data is in there, raw. The convoluted attempts to throw shade and mud is all your own work.
Yes, that’s literally the article I posted. Well done for, er, re-posting it.
I guess we’ll have to take Philip “Guru” Thompson’s view that it is dodgy over the British Election Study’s.
No I am saying that @Gardenwalker and the New Statesman's spin is dodgy, not the BES.
Please find me a single citation from the BES referring to Students as "workers" as opposed to "working age". I doubt they're that stupid, unlike some others.
The data is in there, raw. The convoluted attempts to throw shade and mid is all your own work.
Yes the data is "all people" or "excluding retirees".
The data is NOT as you lied about "workers" versus all people. You told a bare faced lie, or you didn't understand the figures, one or the other.
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
The left don’t consider poor pensioners to be working class anymore as including them means the working class are voting Tory and voted for Brexit .
Your persistence on this point indicates you have some flesh in the game.
I know you’re not retired yourself, so I assume it is because you need the elderly vote to lend some kind of popular legitimacy to your anti-immigrant views.
If you think the route back to electoral popularity for Labour is to epouse pro-immigration views then I have a bridge to sell you.
I haven’t said it is?
I merely note that Isam seems to be triggered by the data I present, and am speculating as to why.
You also seem a bit touchy about it.
No. But you seem to be very touchy about anyone who doesn't take your black and white conclusions about the data at face value.
If I’m touchy it is because while some posters seem interested in what look to be counter-intuitive findings, others use it as lever to spout bolleaux about “the left”.
If all this board is good for is moaning about “the left” or “the right”, it is not v interesting.
I agree with that but I don't think that's what I was saying.
The Conservatives have solid leads amongst those aged over 38-42 and this corroborates with my experience at work in my professional life.
The FT story doesn’t even say that the government is planning to delay two weeks, in fact it suggests they are very keen to go with 21 June. It is based on a single briefing from a single source who is speculating that 5 July could be a fallback option. It’s all a lot of nothing much.
The final decision on 21st June will not be announced until 14th June. That leaves us with another 12 days to fill with meaningless speculation. It's what the media do best.
I would be concerned about any briefing saying that the Govt is "keen", but...
Just sets up for a scenario for doing something that they "have been desperate to avoid, but the evidence is too worrying..."
The thing is though that the claimed "fall back option" is ludicrous. If they think that the data doesn't look good on the 14th June (for the 21st June) it really isn't going to look any better two weeks later. The number of cases certainly won't hit any sort of ceiling in that time IMO, and given the currently unprotected or partially unprotected cohorts who might gain extra 'protection' in those two weeks is massively skewed towards groups who aren't at great risk anyway, the number of lives saved by a two week delay would be pretty small as well.
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
And yet, if there was no retired vote, Labour would be in government.
So yes, it is the retired propping the Conservatives up.
As I understand it, the passion for Tory voting in this cohort is higher than pretty much ever.
Anyway my point is this. We spend a lot of time, and commentators write many pieces, about appealing to the left behind.
It may be simpler. Labour holds no appeal for old people (especially old English people) and they happen to be the key voting bloc.
You're back to huge simplifications again.
Once people own their own home, own their own cars, start their own families, and live in the Shires, more of them tend to vote Conservative than not.
I’m not disputing that.
You seem blithely uninterested at the very stark age divide that has developed in voting preference, and the interesting implications that has on governments deciding whether or not to promote economy-enhancing policy.
No, I'm not uninterested in it (still less blithely, and have said it's an issue upthread) but I draw different conclusions to you.
The movement won't be inexorably in one direction either - I could see some of the existing Labour-heavy coherts moving in the opposite direction in 15-20 years time, for example.
In the media there is lots of talk about the Scottish nationalists, about Labour losing the red wall, about Brexit changing voting patterns - but the biggest change in voting patterns, the electoral triumph of the old over the young, a fracture in voting patterns that must surely reflect other divides in our society between the age groups - this change does not receive nearly as much notice or comment.
True, and I suspect it started with student loans, sky high housing costs and was turbo-boosted by a values schism over Brexit.
My experience of under 30s (talking to them in real life, and not on social media) is that they are a bit Wokey but aren't really socialist; fundamentally, they want choice, a good job, their own home, and a nice, stable and inclusive society.
Also, once you get them off social media, they are fundamentally rational and even convinceable on the most sensitive subjects.
Youth-whisperer Casino Royale finds the under 30s “fundamentally rational”. What a relief!
I noted the disproportionately high house price rises in the north of England and the Midlands and wondered, of we are seeing a phenomenon similar to that in the USA where conservative-minded people are leaving liberal states such as New York and California for the likes of Texas and Florida.
Is there any evidence we could be seeing Conservative-minded voters leaving the south and trying to settle in the new heartlands of the north and midlands with the advantages remote working provides?
It is important that there is a Waitrose which does not seem to be much represented in the red wall seats.
The FT story doesn’t even say that the government is planning to delay two weeks, in fact it suggests they are very keen to go with 21 June. It is based on a single briefing from a single source who is speculating that 5 July could be a fallback option. It’s all a lot of nothing much.
The final decision on 21st June will not be announced until 14th June. That leaves us with another 12 days to fill with meaningless speculation. It's what the media do best.
The media have been thoroughly exposed by this couple of years haven’t they? I’ve most recently been amused by breathless reporting about how the Government won’t take a decision yet, despite that fact being announced when the “roadmap” was....
Incidentally I hate to be a pedant (that’s a lie) but I’ve always had issues with the use of “roadmap” in this context. A roadmap is a tool one can use to design a route for oneself. It is not a journey plan.
Yes, that’s literally the article I posted. Well done for, er, re-posting it.
I guess we’ll have to take Philip “Guru” Thompson’s view that it is dodgy over the British Election Study’s.
No I am saying that @Gardenwalker and the New Statesman's spin is dodgy, not the BES.
Please find me a single citation from the BES referring to Students as "workers" as opposed to "working age". I doubt they're that stupid, unlike some others.
The data is in there, raw. The convoluted attempts to throw shade and mid is all your own work.
Yes the data is "all people" or "excluding retirees".
The data is NOT as you lied about "workers" versus all people. You told a bare faced lie, or you didn't understand the figures, one or the other.
I’ll let sane PBers decide.
The data presents two views - “all voters” versus “voters excluding retirees”.
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
The left don’t consider poor pensioners to be working class anymore as including them means the working class are voting Tory and voted for Brexit .
Your persistence on this point indicates you have some flesh in the game.
I know you’re not retired yourself, so I assume it is because you need the elderly vote to lend some kind of popular legitimacy to your anti-immigrant views.
If you think the route back to electoral popularity for Labour is to epouse pro-immigration views then I have a bridge to sell you.
I haven’t said it is?
I merely note that Isam seems to be triggered by the data I present, and am speculating as to why.
You also seem a bit touchy about it.
No. But you seem to be very touchy about anyone who doesn't take your black and white conclusions about the data at face value.
If I’m touchy it is because while some posters seem interested in what look to be counter-intuitive findings, others use it as lever to spout bolleaux about “the left”.
If all this board is good for is moaning about “the left” or “the right”, it is not v interesting.
I agree with that but I don't think that's what I was saying.
The Conservatives have solid leads amongst those aged over 38-42 and this corroborates with my experience at work in my professional life.
If you take the working age for half the population nowadays as basically 22-65 and the crossover age is 39, then there's little realistic way a dominant majority of workers could be Labour.
The New Statesman with an agenda to push and gullible people here pushing it for their own agenda have a figure they wanted by including the extremely slanted 18-21 demographic which warps the picture.
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
And yet, if there was no retired vote, Labour would be in government.
So yes, it is the retired propping the Conservatives up.
As I understand it, the passion for Tory voting in this cohort is higher than pretty much ever.
Anyway my point is this. We spend a lot of time, and commentators write many pieces, about appealing to the left behind.
It may be simpler. Labour holds no appeal for old people (especially old English people) and they happen to be the key voting bloc.
You're back to huge simplifications again.
Once people own their own home, own their own cars, start their own families, and live in the Shires, more of them tend to vote Conservative than not.
I’m not disputing that.
You seem blithely uninterested at the very stark age divide that has developed in voting preference, and the interesting implications that has on governments deciding whether or not to promote economy-enhancing policy.
No, I'm not uninterested in it (still less blithely, and have said it's an issue upthread) but I draw different conclusions to you.
The movement won't be inexorably in one direction either - I could see some of the existing Labour-heavy coherts moving in the opposite direction in 15-20 years time, for example.
In the media there is lots of talk about the Scottish nationalists, about Labour losing the red wall, about Brexit changing voting patterns - but the biggest change in voting patterns, the electoral triumph of the old over the young, a fracture in voting patterns that must surely reflect other divides in our society between the age groups - this change does not receive nearly as much notice or comment.
True, and I suspect it started with student loans, sky high housing costs and was turbo-boosted by a values schism over Brexit.
My experience of under 30s (talking to them in real life, and not on social media) is that they are a bit Wokey but aren't really socialist; fundamentally, they want choice, a good job, their own home, and a nice, stable and inclusive society.
Also, once you get them off social media, they are fundamentally rational and even convinceable on the most sensitive subjects.
I guess I'm more interested in the other end of the divide - why do the Tories now win such huge landslides among the old?
The obvious answer - and I don't know whether it is true - is that the Tories sheltered them from austerity, and so they have done what they've always accused Labour of seeking to do. They've created a client vote that they buy with taxpayer's money.
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
The left don’t consider poor pensioners to be working class anymore as including them means the working class are voting Tory and voted for Brexit .
Your persistence on this point indicates you have some flesh in the game.
I know you’re not retired yourself, so I assume it is because you need the elderly vote to lend some kind of popular legitimacy to your anti-immigrant views.
If you think the route back to electoral popularity for Labour is to epouse pro-immigration views then I have a bridge to sell you.
I haven’t said it is?
I merely note that Isam seems to be triggered by the data I present, and am speculating as to why.
You also seem a bit touchy about it.
No. But you seem to be very touchy about anyone who doesn't take your black and white conclusions about the data at face value.
If I’m touchy it is because while some posters seem interested in what look to be counter-intuitive findings, others use it as lever to spout bolleaux about “the left”.
If all this board is good for is moaning about “the left” or “the right”, it is not v interesting.
I agree with that but I don't think that's what I was saying.
The Conservatives have solid leads amongst those aged over 38-42 and this corroborates with my experience at work in my professional life.
If you take the working age for half the population nowadays as basically 22-65 and the crossover age is 39, then there's little realistic way a dominant majority of workers could be Labour.
The New Statesman with an agenda to push and gullible people here pushing it for their own agenda have a figure they wanted by including the extremely slanted 18-21 demographic which warps the picture.
And using ‘working class’ to describe ‘working age’
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
And yet, if there was no retired vote, Labour would be in government.
So yes, it is the retired propping the Conservatives up.
As I understand it, the passion for Tory voting in this cohort is higher than pretty much ever.
Anyway my point is this. We spend a lot of time, and commentators write many pieces, about appealing to the left behind.
It may be simpler. Labour holds no appeal for old people (especially old English people) and they happen to be the key voting bloc.
You're back to huge simplifications again.
Once people own their own home, own their own cars, start their own families, and live in the Shires, more of them tend to vote Conservative than not.
I’m not disputing that.
You seem blithely uninterested at the very stark age divide that has developed in voting preference, and the interesting implications that has on governments deciding whether or not to promote economy-enhancing policy.
No, I'm not uninterested in it (still less blithely, and have said it's an issue upthread) but I draw different conclusions to you.
The movement won't be inexorably in one direction either - I could see some of the existing Labour-heavy coherts moving in the opposite direction in 15-20 years time, for example.
In the media there is lots of talk about the Scottish nationalists, about Labour losing the red wall, about Brexit changing voting patterns - but the biggest change in voting patterns, the electoral triumph of the old over the young, a fracture in voting patterns that must surely reflect other divides in our society between the age groups - this change does not receive nearly as much notice or comment.
True, and I suspect it started with student loans, sky high housing costs and was turbo-boosted by a values schism over Brexit.
My experience of under 30s (talking to them in real life, and not on social media) is that they are a bit Wokey but aren't really socialist; fundamentally, they want choice, a good job, their own home, and a nice, stable and inclusive society.
Also, once you get them off social media, they are fundamentally rational and even convinceable on the most sensitive subjects.
I guess I'm more interested in the other end of the divide - why do the Tories now win such huge landslides among the old?
The obvious answer - and I don't know whether it is true - is that the Tories sheltered them from austerity, and so they have done what they've always accused Labour of seeking to do. They've created a client vote that they buy with taxpayer's money.
I noted the disproportionately high house price rises in the north of England and the Midlands and wondered, of we are seeing a phenomenon similar to that in the USA where conservative-minded people are leaving liberal states such as New York and California for the likes of Texas and Florida.
Is there any evidence we could be seeing Conservative-minded voters leaving the south and trying to settle in the new heartlands of the north and midlands with the advantages remote working provides?
I doubt this very much.
But, also, I have no theory for why house prices in the north and midlands are booming, when we’ve been told it’s all about Londoners moving to Gloucestershire and Devon.
What *is* driving house prices in the north and midlands?
I think it is affordability, Fox Jr has become a homeowner in the fashionable Clarendon Park area of Leicester aged 26, while in an entry level job. You don't see that down South.
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
And yet, if there was no retired vote, Labour would be in government.
So yes, it is the retired propping the Conservatives up.
As I understand it, the passion for Tory voting in this cohort is higher than pretty much ever.
Anyway my point is this. We spend a lot of time, and commentators write many pieces, about appealing to the left behind.
It may be simpler. Labour holds no appeal for old people (especially old English people) and they happen to be the key voting bloc.
You're back to huge simplifications again.
Once people own their own home, own their own cars, start their own families, and live in the Shires, more of them tend to vote Conservative than not.
I’m not disputing that.
You seem blithely uninterested at the very stark age divide that has developed in voting preference, and the interesting implications that has on governments deciding whether or not to promote economy-enhancing policy.
No, I'm not uninterested in it (still less blithely, and have said it's an issue upthread) but I draw different conclusions to you.
The movement won't be inexorably in one direction either - I could see some of the existing Labour-heavy coherts moving in the opposite direction in 15-20 years time, for example.
In the media there is lots of talk about the Scottish nationalists, about Labour losing the red wall, about Brexit changing voting patterns - but the biggest change in voting patterns, the electoral triumph of the old over the young, a fracture in voting patterns that must surely reflect other divides in our society between the age groups - this change does not receive nearly as much notice or comment.
True, and I suspect it started with student loans, sky high housing costs and was turbo-boosted by a values schism over Brexit.
My experience of under 30s (talking to them in real life, and not on social media) is that they are a bit Wokey but aren't really socialist; fundamentally, they want choice, a good job, their own home, and a nice, stable and inclusive society.
Also, once you get them off social media, they are fundamentally rational and even convinceable on the most sensitive subjects.
Youth-whisperer Casino Royale finds the under 30s “fundamentally rational”. What a relief!
If you have a problem with your kid mate, just give me a call.
It is not the “working class” who voted for the Tories.
It is the elderly, who tend to be concentrated in economically backward areas like Hartlepool.
I thought the Tories had a huge lead in C2DEs?
They tend to be OLD. Economically inactive.
Hence voting to preserve their own wealth and ethnic hygiene at the expense of their grandkids’ life chances.
I think we have the answer.
It's a great figleaf to allow you to reinforce your own prejudices.
Happens to be true though, doesn’t it?
The statistics on wealth accumulation for the under 30s are simply terrifying. Old people don’t seem to care, or at least vote parties and policies that make the situation ever worse.
Perhaps this is simply what happens when a demos ages so much that the economically inactive (ie retired) form the decisive bloc.
I agree that the leads for Labour amongst the under 35s are so pronounced, particularly amongst women, that they're bound to cause a problem for the Conservatives in 15-20 years time.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
And yet, if there was no retired vote, Labour would be in government.
So yes, it is the retired propping the Conservatives up.
As I understand it, the passion for Tory voting in this cohort is higher than pretty much ever.
Anyway my point is this. We spend a lot of time, and commentators write many pieces, about appealing to the left behind.
It may be simpler. Labour holds no appeal for old people (especially old English people) and they happen to be the key voting bloc.
You're back to huge simplifications again.
Once people own their own home, own their own cars, start their own families, and live in the Shires, more of them tend to vote Conservative than not.
I’m not disputing that.
You seem blithely uninterested at the very stark age divide that has developed in voting preference, and the interesting implications that has on governments deciding whether or not to promote economy-enhancing policy.
No, I'm not uninterested in it (still less blithely, and have said it's an issue upthread) but I draw different conclusions to you.
The movement won't be inexorably in one direction either - I could see some of the existing Labour-heavy coherts moving in the opposite direction in 15-20 years time, for example.
In the media there is lots of talk about the Scottish nationalists, about Labour losing the red wall, about Brexit changing voting patterns - but the biggest change in voting patterns, the electoral triumph of the old over the young, a fracture in voting patterns that must surely reflect other divides in our society between the age groups - this change does not receive nearly as much notice or comment.
True, and I suspect it started with student loans, sky high housing costs and was turbo-boosted by a values schism over Brexit.
My experience of under 30s (talking to them in real life, and not on social media) is that they are a bit Wokey but aren't really socialist; fundamentally, they want choice, a good job, their own home, and a nice, stable and inclusive society.
Also, once you get them off social media, they are fundamentally rational and even convinceable on the most sensitive subjects.
I guess I'm more interested in the other end of the divide - why do the Tories now win such huge landslides among the old?
The obvious answer - and I don't know whether it is true - is that the Tories sheltered them from austerity, and so they have done what they've always accused Labour of seeking to do. They've created a client vote that they buy with taxpayer's money.
Yes, I don't agree with that bit. The triple lock is indefensible and the Tories risk making themselves a party of vested interests.
That said, they've boxed themselves in so much electorally now it will be difficult to get out of it.
I noted the disproportionately high house price rises in the north of England and the Midlands and wondered, of we are seeing a phenomenon similar to that in the USA where conservative-minded people are leaving liberal states such as New York and California for the likes of Texas and Florida.
Is there any evidence we could be seeing Conservative-minded voters leaving the south and trying to settle in the new heartlands of the north and midlands with the advantages remote working provides?
I doubt this very much.
But, also, I have no theory for why house prices in the north and midlands are booming, when we’ve been told it’s all about Londoners moving to Gloucestershire and Devon.
What *is* driving house prices in the north and midlands?
I think it is affordability, Fox Jr has become a homeowner in the fashionable Clarendon Park area of Leicester aged 26, while in an entry level job. You don't see that down South.
Leicesters population is expanding too.
Is Clarendon Park fashionable now? Was full of student digs in my day. Or maybe I’m thinking a bit further south into Knighton.
Edit - Hang on no, I’m thinking of Highfields. That was always nice.
I think the reason @isam, @Casino_Royale and @Philip_Thompson are all frothing is that they are invested in the idea that the Tories are supported by the “mean”, “everyday” British voter.
Among whom they naturally include their fine selves.
Data that shows that the Tories win largely because they have the elderly retiree vote sewn up discomforts them because they have to confront the fact that they hold essentially geriatric views.
Comments
In fact, Labour beat the Tories in EVERY income group workers up to £100k.
I find this quite astonishing, given Corbyn.
However, it's a gross simplification to say it's just the retired propping the Conservatives up. The truth is the Tories have sizeable leads for anyone over 40 years old, and there are more of them than any other electoral age group.
If you only saw most of the England players only play for England you would be shocked how they play for their clubs. Grealish drives to defenders, trick, flick, sits them down....nothing like that for England.
The good teams will score 2 against England dodgy defence, and England won't be able to score 2 or 3 in response.
Now, it gets difficult as we consider the unvaccinated - there will be those who, for medical reasons, cannot be vaccinated. We must do all we can to help those very few and be sympathetic toward their situation.
As for those who refuse the vaccine for other reasons - I come back to the general point it is one of, if not, the primary responsibility of Government to protect its citizens irrespective of whether said citizens choose to protect themselves.
As has been debated on here many times, those who, in spite of the overwhelming medical evidence to the contrary, continue to pursue lifestyles and make life choices which actively are self-harming are still entitled to treatment, help and support. If we apply that principle to addicts for example, should we not apply the same to those who choose not to be vaccinated?
If I choose not to take the vaccine, catch the virus and become seriously ill, am I to be denied hospital treatment because of the conscious decision I took?
Someone once famously stated they were voting Labour "to protect the unfortunate from the tyranny of the fortunate". To what extent, if any, do we need to protect the unvaccinated from the tyranny of the vaccinated?
That's not an argument for the perpetuation of restrictions but I'm concerned there's an undercurrent developing those who aren't vaccinated which isn't pleasant.
Eek!
So yes, it is the retired propping the Conservatives up.
As I understand it, the passion for Tory voting in this cohort is higher than pretty much ever.
Anyway my point is this.
We spend a lot of time, and commentators write many pieces, about appealing to the left behind.
It may be simpler. Labour holds no appeal for old people (especially old English people) and they happen to be the key voting bloc.
We need more data.
So what tyranny of the vaccinated?
If the vaccinated were to compel the unvaccinated to get vaccinated against their wishes then that is a tyranny. But letting people make their own decisions is not a tyranny.
Good news.
I fully understand why we had such an approach in the world cup, we didn't have the attacking talent. But since then, we never see the best of Sancho, Rashford, Sterling, etc etc etc when playing for England.
5 at the back, 2 defensive midfielders, sideways sideways sideways sideways.
I noted the disproportionately high house price rises in the north of England and the Midlands and wondered, of we are seeing a phenomenon similar to that in the USA where conservative-minded people are leaving liberal states such as New York and California for the likes of Texas and Florida.
Is there any evidence we could be seeing Conservative-minded voters leaving the south and trying to settle in the new heartlands of the north and midlands with the advantages remote working provides?
I know you’re not retired yourself, so I assume it is because you need the elderly vote to lend some kind of popular legitimacy to your anti-immigrant views.
@itvpeston
re roadmap: "The next 12 days are going to be really important to see what the virus is doing. Remember, we've got a very large scale surveillance infrastructure in place both in terms of waste water, surveillance and of course large scale testing."
Once people own their own home, own their own cars, start their own families, and live in the Shires, more of them tend to vote Conservative than not.
Are you including Students in those who are "working" while excluding those who work over 65?
But, also, I have no theory for why house prices in the north and midlands are booming, when we’ve been told it’s all about Londoners moving to Gloucestershire and Devon.
What *is* driving house prices in the north and midlands?
And these are not my figures they come from the British Election Study.
If you look at Conservative leads for low-education to mid-education voters in the YouGov poll post GE2019 they are overwhelming.
You seem blithely uninterested at the very stark age divide that has developed in voting preference, and the interesting implications that has on governments deciding whether or not to promote economy-enhancing policy.
Now they are able to buy.
Lockdown with their parents being a major motivator.
Didn't the BES get the percentages of the vote wrong?
NY1.com - First Republican mayoral debate turns into a shoutfest
https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/decision-2021/2021/05/27/first-republican-mayoral-debate-turns-into-a-shoutfest
The Republican candidates for mayor face a steep climb when it comes to winning the general election in November, but they're at least making the primary interesting.
Their first live televised debate Wednesday was heavy on theatrics, finger-pointing and personal attacks.
"Curtis, you're a clown,” said Fernando Mateo. “And you're making a mockery of this very important primary."
The debate did take on a circus-like atmosphere, as Mateo and Curtis Sliwa repeatedly went out of their way to tear each other down. Each tried to frame himself as the true Republican and true supporter of law enforcement.
Mateo said of Sliwa: "He is partly responsible for bail reform and defund the police because he supported and endorsed every single Democrat that voted for those laws."
In response, Sliwa pointed to remarks Mateo had made after La Marina, the Inwood restaurant he co-owned, was shut down by police. "You publicly said on Hot 97, the morning radio program, that all those cops responsible for that, they should have their heads cut off like snakes,” Sliwa said.
"All of a sudden,” he added, “you've discovered you have love for the police."
Both candidates support adding police officers, including on the subway. Sliwa points to his experience as founder of the Guardian Angels.
"You don't ride the subways,” he told Mateo. “I ride the subways every day."
Mateo later shot back: "Curtis Sliwa is a subway rider. That's all he knows how to do, communicate with the subway homeless people, because that's what he takes pride in. And he communicates with his 13 cats and his 14 litter boxes in his house."
The candidates actually agreed on many of the policy questions posed, including on education, street space and speed cameras. But Mateo — an advocate for cab drivers and bodega owners — has more closely tied himself to Trump, even falsely stating Trump won the November election.
Both men broke debate rules and brought out props: Mateo his “Trumpy Bear" stuffed animal, and Sliwa a photograph of Mateo posing with Mayor Bill de Blasio.
Mateo raised money for the mayor, but on Wednesday he defended his fundraising, saying many business people donate across party lines.
As for Sliwa, he opposed Trump and is a relative newcomer to the Republican party, as Mateo pointed out.
"Curtis is a clown,” Mateo said. “I think his red beret is too tight on him. He never voted for Trump. He never supported the president that really backed law enforcement."
Sliwa clarified: "I never voted for Hillary. I never voted for Joe Biden. I went independent."
I merely note that Isam seems to be triggered by the data I present, and am speculating as to why.
You also seem a bit touchy about it.
The callow, the inexperienced and the immature - they vote overwhelmingly Labour.
While those on the verge of senility, those with early onset Alzheimers, and those with rose tinted views on the British Empire - they vote overwhelmingly Conservative.
The movement won't be inexorably in one direction either - I could see some of the existing Labour-heavy coherts moving in the opposite direction in 15-20 years time, for example.
Such a difference compared to some others we can no doubt name.
Could there be a lot of rich people who have saved money in the pandemic by avoiding restraints, who are now spending that on buy-to-lets in there northern places?
It doesn't exclude Students, nor include workers past 65. Almost as if it wasn't designed to poll workers and @Gardenwalker is just pushing his own agenda. 🤦♂️
Well done for, er, re-posting it.
I guess we’ll have to take Philip “Guru” Thompson’s view that it is dodgy over the British Election Study’s.
Jamie Murray is spot on IMO. Let them fill the crowds with fully vaxxed frontline workers. Wimbledon, Royal Ascot, England vs Scotland at the Euros.
In the media there is lots of talk about the Scottish nationalists, about Labour losing the red wall, about Brexit changing voting patterns - but the biggest change in voting patterns, the electoral triumph of the old over the young, a fracture in voting patterns that must surely reflect other divides in our society between the age groups - this change does not receive nearly as much notice or comment.
I suspect there is a large amount of anecdata about Londoners moving to Gloucestershire and Devon - people who move there tend to be visible to people who write articles about it in broadsheet newspapers. But they aren't necessarily representative.
The bad news for Labour is that the country will increasingly age over the next decade before stabilising. We live in a Gerontocracy.
If all this board is good for is moaning about “the left” or “the right”, it is not v interesting.
Please find me a single citation from the BES referring to Students as "workers" as opposed to "working age". I doubt they're that stupid, unlike some others.
Unlockdownwise, no job done = job done.
Simples
The trouble is he already has the best titles available.
Could we crown him king??
If by "workers" you included over 65 workers and excluded students and the unemployed you'd have a very different figure.
My experience of under 30s (talking to them in real life, and not on social media) is that they are a bit Wokey but aren't really socialist; fundamentally, they want choice, a good job, their own home, and a nice, stable and inclusive society.
Also, once you get them off social media, they are fundamentally rational and even convinceable on the most sensitive subjects.
The convoluted attempts to throw shade and mud is all your own work.
The data is NOT as you lied about "workers" versus all people. You told a bare faced lie, or you didn't understand the figures, one or the other.
The Conservatives have solid leads amongst those aged over 38-42 and this corroborates with my experience at work in my professional life.
Just sets up for a scenario for doing something that they "have been desperate to avoid, but the evidence is too worrying..."
The thing is though that the claimed "fall back option" is ludicrous. If they think that the data doesn't look good on the 14th June (for the 21st June) it really isn't going to look any better two weeks later. The number of cases certainly won't hit any sort of ceiling in that time IMO, and given the currently unprotected or partially unprotected cohorts who might gain extra 'protection' in those two weeks is massively skewed towards groups who aren't at great risk anyway, the number of lives saved by a two week delay would be pretty small as well.
Incidentally I hate to be a pedant (that’s a lie) but I’ve always had issues with the use of “roadmap” in this context. A roadmap is a tool one can use to design a route for oneself. It is not a journey plan.
The data presents two views - “all voters” versus “voters excluding retirees”.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2021/06/labour-not-conservatives-was-largest-party-among-low-income-workers-2019
I literally have no idea what Philip Thompson’s issue is, but with experience of his various posts on here I also couldn’t give a shit.
The New Statesman with an agenda to push and gullible people here pushing it for their own agenda have a figure they wanted by including the extremely slanted 18-21 demographic which warps the picture.
The obvious answer - and I don't know whether it is true - is that the Tories sheltered them from austerity, and so they have done what they've always accused Labour of seeking to do. They've created a client vote that they buy with taxpayer's money.
Leicesters population is expanding too.
That said, they've boxed themselves in so much electorally now it will be difficult to get out of it.
Edit - Hang on no, I’m thinking of Highfields. That was always nice.
Among whom they naturally include their fine selves.
Data that shows that the Tories win largely because they have the elderly retiree vote sewn up discomforts them because they have to confront the fact that they hold essentially geriatric views.