Except the New Statesman figures include students amongst the figure for 'excluding retirees.'
As I showed last night IPSOS Mori had the Tories winning all classes amongst over 65s in 2019 and the Tories won ABs, C1s and C2s amongst 35-54s with Labour winning DEs amongst that age group.
Labour won all classes amongst 18 to 34s though so it is really only students and under 35s not yet on the property ladder Labour won, once workers neared 40 and got on the property ladder they voted Tory (with only those low paid workers or the unemployed still in social housing or renting over 40 in social class DE sticking with Labour).
Blair of course even managed to win retirees over 65 in 1997 41% to 36% for the Tories and in 2001 he only lost them by 1% to Hague and in 2005 by just 4% to Howard. Even Brown only lost them by 13% in 2010 and so it really is a particularly post Brexit phenomonon.
In 1997 I was still working with 6 years to go before I could draw any of my pensions. I was a senior (in my speciality) NHS staff member, and my views were similar to those with whom I worked. In other words the issues which faced me then were not necessarily those which face me 20+ years later, although as far as I am concerned, I've stayed on the left. I wonder why I'm unusual.
“Pensions” may be a clue. I am guessing you are still relatively well off. Many others of your age group are not so secure. Do they trust a Labour Party that has shown little concern for them or do they trust a party which has, at least on the major issue before Covid, accepted the will of the electorate?
I am not a Tory and never voted for them but can easily understand why a party that seems to value Palestinians over poor people in their own country and refused to accept the result of the referendum and campaigned to have it reversed is less relevant to them.
I suspect you make fair points; although it is somewhat surprising to me that the people who in 1975 voted overwhelmingly for Europe appear to be so hostile to it now. I was active in the pro-Europe campaign in my 30's, in 1975, and most of those who thought it a Good Idea were my age.
The reason Boris Johnson won a majority in 2019 was mainly because the Left vote splintered a bit from the 2017 election, but the Tories did do a little bit better among 35 to 54 year olds.
What is clear, however, is that Brexit has accentuated the age divide.
In 2010 Labour had pretty much achieved an even spread across the ages, as Clegg nicked many of the younger voters.
Things could be a lot worse for Labour if the Lib Dems were still relevant.
The risk for Labour is that the Greens capture the zeitgeist amongst the youth.
I think they probably will, which could put the Greens on 10% and Labour on 25%. The Greens getting into government in Germany may make it more likely.
This kind of divide is only going to get worse once the oldies are watching 24 hour Tory propaganda on Gammon Boomer News.
Why are the left so scared of GBnews, they have Sky and the BBC
I don't watch Sky so I don't know about their output. The idea that the BBC's news output is leftwing is laughable, with smug Tory Nick Robinson, government spokesperson Laura Kuensberg etc. I can't listen to it. I have Magic on in the car to keep my blood pressure down.
BBC is not left wing, but it is achingly metropolitan elite, woke etc and out of touch with a lot of country. The nadir for me is Countryfile, which is a programme made by Townies, for Townies about days out in the country for Townies. It has no relation to its predecessor, The Farming Programme? My sister, who worked on farms for years, just laughs at it.
Townyfile is OK, and still has some quite nice articles on it. The person that makes my rural blood boil is that tw*t Chris Packham on "Nature Watch"
Packham is actually very knowledgeable about wildlife even if leftwing
Too political to be a presenter.. he should feck.off .
(The link is to a journalist/blogger who is a longstanding and outspoken supporter of HS2, so be aware he is incredibly critical of the Green stance on this - but you could probably deduce that from the link!)
Would the Greens rather we all used cars, rather than trains?
To be fair to the Greens, the case for HS2 is definitely not about getting people out of their cars.
That said, it has occurred to me that one argument for HS2 could be that car ownership is going to fall appreciably in the next 20 years.
But I'm not sure I'd want to make that argument if I were the government...
Well, it is, partly at any rate. Providing more capacity, meaning more local services so people don’t need cars, at any rate in suburban areas.
Hmmm. How many people drive to work because the trains are too crowded/too infrequent?
How many people would drive into central Birmingham if they had trains that were every ten minutes and had seats?
I don't know, is there research on this? For London, the train/tube/bus/bike are the only realistic options unless you're on £150,000+ a year and have a private car parking space available.
And will HS2 improve capacity into and out of Birmingham? Most of the EUS to MAN/LIV/GLA trains by-pass Birmingham through the Trent Valley.
It will include a whole new station at Curzon Street!
Okay, so which stations are going to get an increase in services into and out of New Street as a result?
Good question, to which the honest answer is I don’t think it’s been decided yet. The growth is in towns to the north (where I live) so obvious candidates would be Lichfield/Sutton Coldfield, Cannock/Hednesford and Codsall (which is west rather than north). But that may change by 2027.
Again, we come back to capacity. It takes a lot longer to turn around a Pendolino than to turn around say a class 323 and they’re a lot longer than local trains as well. So taking seven platforms (probably six in full use) out of New Street might free up the equivalent of twelve platforms for local services.
The only two elections I can find where the Tories won the youth vote (of those 18-34 years) in recent years is the 1979GE and 1983GE.
I presume that's because policies like Right to Buy and Trade Union reform appealed to them, together with increased choice, and the Tories looked both reformist and modern.
The Tories won 18 to 24s by 1% in 1979 and by 9% in 1983.
Labour had won 18 to 24s by 18% in October 1974 however and Kinnock won 18 to 24s by 2% in 1987.
In 1979 it was partly because the Tories looked more modern with a woman leader and by 1983 as they won a landslide.
Generally the Tories only win the youth vote in landslide years as they did in 1983 just as Labour only win the pensioner vote in landslide years as they did in 1997 when New Labour won over 65s by 5% over the Tories
This kind of divide is only going to get worse once the oldies are watching 24 hour Tory propaganda on Gammon Boomer News.
Why are the left so scared of GBnews, they have Sky and the BBC
The BBC, particularly in the East, surely cannot be described as ‘left-wing’ by anyone, other than the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg!
Perhaps not left-wing, but it certainly has a particular set of values which it regards as self-evident. It is very keen on diversity as long as all the people it employs share those values. Questions are asked and programmes commissioned on the assumption that those values are so obviously true that if anyone disagrees the task is to find out why those people are wrong/lying, rather than to investigate to see if they might have a point.
I think that this is difficult because there is an argument that a national broadcaster should regard some values as self evident. Equality for women, anti-racism, the unacceptability of homophobia are perhaps simple examples. Those challenging those sort of values should in turn be challenged robustly because they are "British" values.
Where I think the BBC has lost its way is that it has applied those values in a highly simplistic way. So, the BBC has been extremely slow to report much of the Rotherham sex abuse stories because of fear that this might encourage racism, it has not wanted to challenge sexual discrimination in the Islamic community and it has been uncritical of much of the nonsense that comes from Stonewall. In many cases they have equiperated fairness with neutrality and this is simply wrong where British values are not being upheld.
I accept that it is a difficult balance, we are a diverse and multicultural nation and the BBC should reflect that but my criticism of them would rather be that they have not stood up for our values enough rather than they have been biased towards them.
I’d agree with almost all of that, apart from your mis-use of the word “equiperated”.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
Isn’t that a nice legal point: if someone says something which is true if according to their meaning of the word but not if you take the common meaning, is it then a lie? (E.g someone might use inflammable to mean not flammable when describing something).
This kind of divide is only going to get worse once the oldies are watching 24 hour Tory propaganda on Gammon Boomer News.
Why are the left so scared of GBnews, they have Sky and the BBC
I don't watch Sky so I don't know about their output. The idea that the BBC's news output is leftwing is laughable, with smug Tory Nick Robinson, government spokesperson Laura Kuensberg etc. I can't listen to it. I have Magic on in the car to keep my blood pressure down.
BBC is not left wing, but it is achingly metropolitan elite, woke etc and out of touch with a lot of country. The nadir for me is Countryfile, which is a programme made by Townies, for Townies about days out in the country for Townies. It has no relation to its predecessor, The Farming Programme? My sister, who worked on farms for years, just laughs at it.
Townyfile is OK, and still has some quite nice articles on it. The person that makes my rural blood boil is that tw*t Chris Packham on "Nature Watch"
Packham is actually very knowledgeable about wildlife even if leftwing
But he also shows a very unhealthy contempt for both the democratic process and the law.
And from time to time delivers the most blatant lies, which he fails to withdraw.
The 2007 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak occurred when the discharge of infectious effluent from a laboratory in Surrey led to foot-and-mouth disease infections at four nearby farms.
The only two elections I can find where the Tories won the youth vote (of those 18-34 years) in recent years is the 1979GE and 1983GE.
I presume that's because policies like Right to Buy and Trade Union reform appealed to them, together with increased choice, and the Tories looked both reformist and modern.
I studied for a year at a university as a 35 year old in 2010. The left wing propaganda was so strong it turned me from a Labour voter into a UKIP member. I think it would be very hard for a teenager to leave there and not be a Labour voter though. So the 50% of teenagers going to university in 2020 as opposed to 15% in 1980 May play a big part
Except the New Statesman figures include students amongst the figure for 'excluding retirees.'
As I showed last night IPSOS Mori had the Tories winning all classes amongst over 65s in 2019 and the Tories won ABs, C1s and C2s amongst 35-54s with Labour winning DEs amongst that age group.
Labour won all classes amongst 18 to 34s though so it is really only students and under 35s not yet on the property ladder Labour won, once workers neared 40 and got on the property ladder they voted Tory (with only those low paid workers or the unemployed still in social housing or renting over 40 in social class DE sticking with Labour).
Blair of course even managed to win retirees over 65 in 1997 41% to 36% for the Tories and in 2001 he only lost them by 1% to Hague and in 2005 by just 4% to Howard. Even Brown only lost them by 13% in 2010 and so it really is a particularly post Brexit phenomonon.
For example Boris beat Corbyn by a vast 47% margin amongst over 65s in 2019 compared to the 24% margin Cameron beat Ed Miliband by in 2015 amongst retirees
The comparison is quite useful in itself.
But I think it will help perpetuate this idea that over time, demographics favour Labour as older Tory voters die and younger Labour voters turn 18.
Of course if that had been the case, Labour would have had a majority from at the very latest 1992.
Generally the average voter votes Labour from when they get their first vote as they leave school and continue to vote Labour as they attend university, if they do and through their 20s when they are renting free and single and early 30s. By their mid 30s if they are married and have bought their first property they start to consider voting Tory and by the time they reach retirement age in their 60s they will likely own their own home outright and continue voting Tory at every general election until they die
Although your analysis is correct, these patterns are not inevitable.
There's an assumption on here that those who are retired vote out of narrow self-interest, and of course many do. But it's worth remembering that retired people usually have kids, maybe in their 30s/40s, and often grandchildren. It doesn't take that much for older people to be persuaded that what may be in their own narrow self-interest is actually not in the interest of their kids or grandkids, especially if they see their kids prospects being tarnished by specific policies. I make no claim to nobility, but when I come to vote, given that I am comfortable retired, I'm more interested in what the offer is to my offspring and to the public good than to me personally.
Yes and they may also help their children get on the property ladder by giving them some money for a deposit to buy their first property too, thus turning their children into Tories by their 40s
The reason Boris Johnson won a majority in 2019 was mainly because the Left vote splintered a bit from the 2017 election, but the Tories did do a little bit better among 35 to 54 year olds.
What is clear, however, is that Brexit has accentuated the age divide.
In 2010 Labour had pretty much achieved an even spread across the ages, as Clegg nicked many of the younger voters.
Things could be a lot worse for Labour if the Lib Dems were still relevant.
The risk for Labour is that the Greens capture the zeitgeist amongst the youth.
I think they probably will, which could put the Greens on 10% and Labour on 25%. The Greens getting into government in Germany may make it more likely.
A politically sharp U.K. Green Party would start sweeping the nimby vote locally to build a base, and would soften some of its more bonkers ideas nationally. Doing so might then force the LibDems to be an Orange Book set of actual liberals and challenge the Tories. Fortunately that’s not to be.
(The green bit that is, because they are dangerous. Not the LibDems, who I wish would do that).
(The link is to a journalist/blogger who is a longstanding and outspoken supporter of HS2, so be aware he is incredibly critical of the Green stance on this - but you could probably deduce that from the link!)
Would the Greens rather we all used cars, rather than trains?
To be fair to the Greens, the case for HS2 is definitely not about getting people out of their cars.
That said, it has occurred to me that one argument for HS2 could be that car ownership is going to fall appreciably in the next 20 years.
But I'm not sure I'd want to make that argument if I were the government...
Why would car ownership fall ?
If there is any fundamental shift away from city living to wanting bigger homes with gardens or working from home then the opposite will happen.
I was thinking that ownership will fall if cars become prohibitively expensive.
But why would that happen ?
I suppose the government could tax them into being prohibitively expensive but do you think that would happen
Is it true, for example, that the Mayor of London is removing the 90% congestion charge reduction for residents of the CG Zone.
Weirdly the free speech warriors on here who love to report on every goings on in individual American schools and tie them to the end of Western Civilisation missed this story that finally came to a conclusion today
It's almost like they aren't concerned about free speech and more that they just mindlessly consuming and regurgitating an endless stream of curated culture war stories designed to enrage them.
Hadn’t seen it as Salon is not a natural reading choice But what the Federalist Society was wrong and should not have happened. Free speech applies to whichever side of the divide.
The 2007 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak occurred when the discharge of infectious effluent from a laboratory in Surrey led to foot-and-mouth disease infections at four nearby farms.
Who are these pensioners not paying council tax? Asking because I want to make sure my parents aren't missing out on something.
Ultimately, the problem is that no democracy has ever gone down the road of only letting net tax payers vote. Should those employed in the public sector get a vote?
Even if such a method was decided upon, what is net?
I've been working over twenty years now and I'm not convinced I'm a net tax payer. Sure I pay VAT (well, sorta), PAYE (well, sorta), council tax, road tax etc but what do I get back out of the system? I don't claim any benefit at all, but I do make use of state owned roads, my bins get collected and the street is lit at night. What value would I place on these?
Given the size of the deficit there can't be many net taxpayers.
(The link is to a journalist/blogger who is a longstanding and outspoken supporter of HS2, so be aware he is incredibly critical of the Green stance on this - but you could probably deduce that from the link!)
Would the Greens rather we all used cars, rather than trains?
Yes, Green opposition to HS2 is absurd. Surely the Greens should be consistently seeking to divert cars and freight off the roads on to rails. And advocating radical transport solutions, electric tramways in cities and so forth.
The inevitable ecological damage caused by such schemes is a 'price worth paying' for the greater good, surely?
Indeed. The single biggest advantage of HS2 is the capacity it frees up for freight trains - each one of which can take a hundred long-distance lorry journeys off the roads. Every Green should be massively in favour of it, but they appear instead to be fans of smelly Diesel engines used to transport stuff.
Take what freight off the roads though ?
I can understand using rail from Felixstowe docks to some Amazon distribution site.
But goods from a supplier to a factory and then products from the factory to a customer are not going to be sent by rail.
Yes - trains are awesome for "I need 10,000 tons of coal a week, delivered from the port to my steel mill"
Indeed.
But sod all use when you want something delivered from A to B tomorrow.
This kind of divide is only going to get worse once the oldies are watching 24 hour Tory propaganda on Gammon Boomer News.
Why are the left so scared of GBnews, they have Sky and the BBC
The BBC, particularly in the East, surely cannot be described as ‘left-wing’ by anyone, other than the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg!
Perhaps not left-wing, but it certainly has a particular set of values which it regards as self-evident. It is very keen on diversity as long as all the people it employs share those values. Questions are asked and programmes commissioned on the assumption that those values are so obviously true that if anyone disagrees the task is to find out why those people are wrong/lying, rather than to investigate to see if they might have a point.
I think that this is difficult because there is an argument that a national broadcaster should regard some values as self evident. Equality for women, anti-racism, the unacceptability of homophobia are perhaps simple examples. Those challenging those sort of values should in turn be challenged robustly because they are "British" values.
Where I think the BBC has lost its way is that it has applied those values in a highly simplistic way. So, the BBC has been extremely slow to report much of the Rotherham sex abuse stories because of fear that this might encourage racism, it has not wanted to challenge sexual discrimination in the Islamic community and it has been uncritical of much of the nonsense that comes from Stonewall. In many cases they have equiperated fairness with neutrality and this is simply wrong where British values are not being upheld.
I accept that it is a difficult balance, we are a diverse and multicultural nation and the BBC should reflect that but my criticism of them would rather be that they have not stood up for our values enough rather than they have been biased towards them.
I’d agree with almost all of that, apart from your mis-use of the word “equiperated”.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
Isn’t that a nice legal point: if someone says something which is true if according to their meaning of the word but not if you take the common meaning, is it then a lie? (E.g someone might use inflammable to mean not flammable when describing something).
This is why contracts are construed by the courts objectively, not subjectively. It doesn't really matter what you meant, it is what the reasonable person (I fear the Clapham Omnibus has been retired) would take from the words used.
But I really wouldn't expect my spontaneous contributions to this site to be examined quite so rigorously.
The reason Boris Johnson won a majority in 2019 was mainly because the Left vote splintered a bit from the 2017 election, but the Tories did do a little bit better among 35 to 54 year olds.
What is clear, however, is that Brexit has accentuated the age divide.
In 2010 Labour had pretty much achieved an even spread across the ages, as Clegg nicked many of the younger voters.
Things could be a lot worse for Labour if the Lib Dems were still relevant.
The risk for Labour is that the Greens capture the zeitgeist amongst the youth.
I think they probably will, which could put the Greens on 10% and Labour on 25%. The Greens getting into government in Germany may make it more likely.
A politically sharp U.K. Green Party would start sweeping the nimby vote locally to build a base, and would soften some of its more bonkers ideas nationally. Doing so might then force the LibDems to be an Orange Book set of actual liberals and challenge the Tories. Fortunately that’s not to be.
(The green bit that is, because they are dangerous. Not the LibDems, who I wish would do that).
In 2019 the Green manifesto was proposing the fewest number of new houses of any major party
This kind of divide is only going to get worse once the oldies are watching 24 hour Tory propaganda on Gammon Boomer News.
Why are the left so scared of GBnews, they have Sky and the BBC
I don't watch Sky so I don't know about their output. The idea that the BBC's news output is leftwing is laughable, with smug Tory Nick Robinson, government spokesperson Laura Kuensberg etc. I can't listen to it. I have Magic on in the car to keep my blood pressure down.
BBC is not left wing, but it is achingly metropolitan elite, woke etc and out of touch with a lot of country. The nadir for me is Countryfile, which is a programme made by Townies, for Townies about days out in the country for Townies. It has no relation to its predecessor, The Farming Programme? My sister, who worked on farms for years, just laughs at it.
Townyfile is OK, and still has some quite nice articles on it. The person that makes my rural blood boil is that tw*t Chris Packham on "Nature Watch"
Packham is actually very knowledgeable about wildlife even if leftwing
But he also shows a very unhealthy contempt for both the democratic process and the law.
And from time to time delivers the most blatant lies, which he fails to withdraw.
Such as?
He’s the one who invented the claim HS2 would destroy 108 woodlands and be the largest deforestation programme since WW1.
Incidentally my son has been very active in school debating for a couple of years now and indeed has his house cup competition today. It is a very common motion that the voting of those over 75 should either be restricted or down weighted in some way so that the young are encouraged to take part and the policy mix is better focused in their direction.
When I first heard of this idea I had some considerable difficultly in reconciling it with democracy but there is no doubt that our policy mix has been heavily influenced by the increasing number of the elderly and their propensity to vote. The triple lock is perhaps the most egregious example but there are many others. The motion tends to win amongst school kids!
They could start by stopping downweighting themselves and actually turning out to vote.
This goes two ways I think - one reason the young don’t vote is because they often aren’t registered to vote: Circumstances force them to move around a lot from one rented room to the next & earning enough to make the next rent payment unsurprisingly takes precedence over things like registering to vote.
The retired on the other hand have a stable income, paid by the state & usually have stable housing of one sort or another. They aren’t (in general) moving around chasing jobs or simply trying to keep a roof over their heads.
The voting register is something of an anacronims in the modern age - modern technology makes it obsolete in its current form. As things currently stand, the register is more of a soft property barrier to voting than anything else - the more secure your accommodation, the more likely you are to be on the register & therefore able to vote. Perhaps alongside other voting reforms, a government interested in every citizen having a stake in their society should make it so that it was always possible for people to vote, regardless of where & how they live?
(Obviously I don’t expect anything of the sort to happen - it would be so wildly against the interests of the current government to encourage the young to vote more after all - but it’s a useful thought experiment.)
What would you replace it with? After all, a list of who is allowed to vote is sort of required at some point. Would you allow people to register as they vote (which strikes me as a good solution, having spent several seconds thinking about it)? If so they really are going to need ID.
A half-way house might be to keep the existing register, but permit voting with ID for those not on the register, registering those new voters in the process? That way the anti-ID crowd can stay happy (as has been pointed out, registering to vote is not /that/ onerous).
In general, I think we ought to err on the side of making barriers to voting as low as possible, subject to keeping the vote itself secure & reliable.
That sounds very sensible, so it obviously won’t happen.
This kind of divide is only going to get worse once the oldies are watching 24 hour Tory propaganda on Gammon Boomer News.
Why are the left so scared of GBnews, they have Sky and the BBC
I don't watch Sky so I don't know about their output. The idea that the BBC's news output is leftwing is laughable, with smug Tory Nick Robinson, government spokesperson Laura Kuensberg etc. I can't listen to it. I have Magic on in the car to keep my blood pressure down.
BBC is not left wing, but it is achingly metropolitan elite, woke etc and out of touch with a lot of country. The nadir for me is Countryfile, which is a programme made by Townies, for Townies about days out in the country for Townies. It has no relation to its predecessor, The Farming Programme? My sister, who worked on farms for years, just laughs at it.
Townyfile is OK, and still has some quite nice articles on it. The person that makes my rural blood boil is that tw*t Chris Packham on "Nature Watch"
Packham is actually very knowledgeable about wildlife even if leftwing
But he also shows a very unhealthy contempt for both the democratic process and the law.
And from time to time delivers the most blatant lies, which he fails to withdraw.
Such as?
One is campaigns launched against particular developments after PP has passed and Packham is outraged about something and pops up on the radio. Ditto most of the national 'green' groups.
The usual Planning Process is a local democratic process run by a local authority, involving consultation, planning gain contributions, and elected councillors making decisions. By the time it gets PP any development has been through solid environmental evaluations by professional Ecologists -- over months and sometimes years, and the outputs have been evaluated and negotiated etc, before evaluation by the Planning Officer then if necessary the Council.
One process is that ginger groups who have failed to stop a development try and undermine the decision by engaging a sleb.
Except the New Statesman figures include students amongst the figure for 'excluding retirees.'
As I showed last night IPSOS Mori had the Tories winning all classes amongst over 65s in 2019 and the Tories won ABs, C1s and C2s amongst 35-54s with Labour winning DEs amongst that age group.
Labour won all classes amongst 18 to 34s though so it is really only students and under 35s not yet on the property ladder Labour won, once workers neared 40 and got on the property ladder they voted Tory (with only those low paid workers or the unemployed still in social housing or renting over 40 in social class DE sticking with Labour).
Blair of course even managed to win retirees over 65 in 1997 41% to 36% for the Tories and in 2001 he only lost them by 1% to Hague and in 2005 by just 4% to Howard. Even Brown only lost them by 13% in 2010 and so it really is a particularly post Brexit phenomonon.
In 1997 I was still working with 6 years to go before I could draw any of my pensions. I was a senior (in my speciality) NHS staff member, and my views were similar to those with whom I worked. In other words the issues which faced me then were not necessarily those which face me 20+ years later, although as far as I am concerned, I've stayed on the left. I wonder why I'm unusual.
“Pensions” may be a clue. I am guessing you are still relatively well off. Many others of your age group are not so secure. Do they trust a Labour Party that has shown little concern for them or do they trust a party which has, at least on the major issue before Covid, accepted the will of the electorate?
I am not a Tory and never voted for them but can easily understand why a party that seems to value Palestinians over poor people in their own country and refused to accept the result of the referendum and campaigned to have it reversed is less relevant to them.
I suspect you make fair points; although it is somewhat surprising to me that the people who in 1975 voted overwhelmingly for Europe appear to be so hostile to it now. I was active in the pro-Europe campaign in my 30's, in 1975, and most of those who thought it a Good Idea were my age.
Because the mask slipped. It was not as sold.
Or because the Murdoch press did what their boss told them to do.
1)Why don't people have to bring the polling card to the polling station 2)Postal voting on demand 3)Is there much of a fraud problem at the moment? Fifteen years ago yes but what has happened recently? 4)If there is a problem it presumably relates to 2 which the government don't want to address
Fingerprinting is interesting. Could this be joined up to check people aren't voting at multiple polling stations?
1. we trust people to do the right thing 2. maybe it shouldn't be quite so easy 3. theres no significant fraud in 99% of places
(The link is to a journalist/blogger who is a longstanding and outspoken supporter of HS2, so be aware he is incredibly critical of the Green stance on this - but you could probably deduce that from the link!)
Would the Greens rather we all used cars, rather than trains?
To be fair to the Greens, the case for HS2 is definitely not about getting people out of their cars.
That said, it has occurred to me that one argument for HS2 could be that car ownership is going to fall appreciably in the next 20 years.
But I'm not sure I'd want to make that argument if I were the government...
Well, it is, partly at any rate. Providing more capacity, meaning more local services so people don’t need cars, at any rate in suburban areas.
Hmmm. How many people drive to work because the trains are too crowded/too infrequent?
Probably trainsphobic.
If they wear smart suits, would that make them cross dressers?
Cross? What makes them so angry?
They were heading into Birmingham?
Last weekend's trip back to God's own Lancashire made me realise just how overcrowded it is. I drove from my parents on the east side of Rochdale into Manchester and didn't leave urban or suburban areas once. Whats more the topography makes many of the towns, villages and roads quite narrow and confined.
Even the run in / out to bookend the trip was an eyeopener. Rossendale is beautiful but how many people? I still love Lancashire, feel very at home in Manchester but am very very happy to live somewhere quiet with open countryside literally on my doorstep.
And if the built up sprawl around Greater Manchester is bad (and it IS bad) it is nothing compared to Greater Birmingham. So yes, I bet they were angry. I like the canal bits in the middle of Brum but you can keep the rest of it.
Incidentally my son has been very active in school debating for a couple of years now and indeed has his house cup competition today. It is a very common motion that the voting of those over 75 should either be restricted or down weighted in some way so that the young are encouraged to take part and the policy mix is better focused in their direction.
Wheng I first heard of this idea I had some considerable difficultly in reconciling it with democracy but there is no doubt that our policy mix has been heavily influenced by the increasing number of the elderly and their propensity to vote. The triple lock is perhaps the most egregious example but there are many others. The motion tends to win amongst school kids!
Doing it on the basis of economic inactivity is clearly invidious and overlooks that many younger people are similarly inactive, as others have said.
The best argument in favour would be to weight votes by average remaining life expectancy, which would upweight the votes of the young on the grounds that they will suffer the consequences of today's policy decisions for much longer.
Yes the heart of the argument is that it tends to make government policy rather short termist and not put enough emphasis on things like global warming and environmental factors. I am not sure that is entirely accurate but it is what is contended.
If you weighted votes by the average expected number of decades of life remaining, in bands based on the midpoint, the weightings would be pretty straightforward:
Under 30s: six votes 30-40: five votes 40-50: four votes 50-60: three votes 60-70: two votes 70 and over: one vote
Terrible idea, but if we did it I'd give older voters more votes than younger people based on the fact they're likely to have more wisdom and experience.
This kind of divide is only going to get worse once the oldies are watching 24 hour Tory propaganda on Gammon Boomer News.
Why are the left so scared of GBnews, they have Sky and the BBC
I don't watch Sky so I don't know about their output. The idea that the BBC's news output is leftwing is laughable, with smug Tory Nick Robinson, government spokesperson Laura Kuensberg etc. I can't listen to it. I have Magic on in the car to keep my blood pressure down.
BBC is not left wing, but it is achingly metropolitan elite, woke etc and out of touch with a lot of country. The nadir for me is Countryfile, which is a programme made by Townies, for Townies about days out in the country for Townies. It has no relation to its predecessor, The Farming Programme? My sister, who worked on farms for years, just laughs at it.
Townyfile is OK, and still has some quite nice articles on it. The person that makes my rural blood boil is that tw*t Chris Packham on "Nature Watch"
Packham is actually very knowledgeable about wildlife even if leftwing
But he also shows a very unhealthy contempt for both the democratic process and the law.
And from time to time delivers the most blatant lies, which he fails to withdraw.
Such as?
He’s the one who invented the claim HS2 would destroy 108 woodlands and be the largest deforestation programme since WW1.
It doesn't help that because he somewhere on the autistic spectrum , that he a zealot
BREAKING: High Court rules the Home Office’s decision to house cross-channel migrants in a run-down barracks in Folkestone, where around 200 men then contracted Covid while sleeping in dormitories, broke the law – paving the way for damages claims. https://twitter.com/BBCDomC/status/1400388001512017923
Except the New Statesman figures include students amongst the figure for 'excluding retirees.'
As I showed last night IPSOS Mori had the Tories winning all classes amongst over 65s in 2019 and the Tories won ABs, C1s and C2s amongst 35-54s with Labour winning DEs amongst that age group.
Labour won all classes amongst 18 to 34s though so it is really only students and under 35s not yet on the property ladder Labour won, once workers neared 40 and got on the property ladder they voted Tory (with only those low paid workers or the unemployed still in social housing or renting over 40 in social class DE sticking with Labour).
Blair of course even managed to win retirees over 65 in 1997 41% to 36% for the Tories and in 2001 he only lost them by 1% to Hague and in 2005 by just 4% to Howard. Even Brown only lost them by 13% in 2010 and so it really is a particularly post Brexit phenomonon.
In 1997 I was still working with 6 years to go before I could draw any of my pensions. I was a senior (in my speciality) NHS staff member, and my views were similar to those with whom I worked. In other words the issues which faced me then were not necessarily those which face me 20+ years later, although as far as I am concerned, I've stayed on the left. I wonder why I'm unusual.
“Pensions” may be a clue. I am guessing you are still relatively well off. Many others of your age group are not so secure. Do they trust a Labour Party that has shown little concern for them or do they trust a party which has, at least on the major issue before Covid, accepted the will of the electorate?
I am not a Tory and never voted for them but can easily understand why a party that seems to value Palestinians over poor people in their own country and refused to accept the result of the referendum and campaigned to have it reversed is less relevant to them.
I suspect you make fair points; although it is somewhat surprising to me that the people who in 1975 voted overwhelmingly for Europe appear to be so hostile to it now. I was active in the pro-Europe campaign in my 30's, in 1975, and most of those who thought it a Good Idea were my age.
Funnily enough, that's not what the BES found. Younger people in 1975 were less likely to vote remain.
Crudely, people who experienced WW2 themselves were very pro-EEC. They were increasingly thin on the ground by 2016. The cohort below them (roughly, born in late 40s/50s, young voters in '75, retiring or retired now) were the core of the unsuccessful leave vote of 1975 and the successful one of 2016.
This kind of divide is only going to get worse once the oldies are watching 24 hour Tory propaganda on Gammon Boomer News.
Why are the left so scared of GBnews, they have Sky and the BBC
The BBC, particularly in the East, surely cannot be described as ‘left-wing’ by anyone, other than the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg!
Perhaps not left-wing, but it certainly has a particular set of values which it regards as self-evident. It is very keen on diversity as long as all the people it employs share those values. Questions are asked and programmes commissioned on the assumption that those values are so obviously true that if anyone disagrees the task is to find out why those people are wrong/lying, rather than to investigate to see if they might have a point.
I think that this is difficult because there is an argument that a national broadcaster should regard some values as self evident. Equality for women, anti-racism, the unacceptability of homophobia are perhaps simple examples. Those challenging those sort of values should in turn be challenged robustly because they are "British" values.
Where I think the BBC has lost its way is that it has applied those values in a highly simplistic way. So, the BBC has been extremely slow to report much of the Rotherham sex abuse stories because of fear that this might encourage racism, it has not wanted to challenge sexual discrimination in the Islamic community and it has been uncritical of much of the nonsense that comes from Stonewall. In many cases they have equiperated fairness with neutrality and this is simply wrong where British values are not being upheld.
I accept that it is a difficult balance, we are a diverse and multicultural nation and the BBC should reflect that but my criticism of them would rather be that they have not stood up for our values enough rather than they have been biased towards them.
I’d agree with almost all of that, apart from your mis-use of the word “equiperated”.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
Isn’t that a nice legal point: if someone says something which is true if according to their meaning of the word but not if you take the common meaning, is it then a lie? (E.g someone might use inflammable to mean not flammable when describing something).
This is why contracts are construed by the courts objectively, not subjectively. It doesn't really matter what you meant, it is what the reasonable person (I fear the Clapham Omnibus has been retired) would take from the words used.
But I really wouldn't expect my spontaneous contributions to this site to be examined quite so rigorously.
What about statements to police or in court: could someone who uses words in an idiosyncratic way find themselves being convicted of perjury?
Edinburgh case numbers now hitting mid January numbers. 1st dose Vaccination is only 62%.
Yes but Scotland's mid January numbers were really quite low compared with the rest of the UK. I remember @Theuniondivvie being quite smug about it.
Really? I’m sure you have a link..
If so, apologies, I’d have hoped the perpetual avalanche of self regarding Covid nationalism on here and in the wider UKOK would have put me off that sort of thing for life.
Except the New Statesman figures include students amongst the figure for 'excluding retirees.'
As I showed last night IPSOS Mori had the Tories winning all classes amongst over 65s in 2019 and the Tories won ABs, C1s and C2s amongst 35-54s with Labour winning DEs amongst that age group.
Labour won all classes amongst 18 to 34s though so it is really only students and under 35s not yet on the property ladder Labour won, once workers neared 40 and got on the property ladder they voted Tory (with only those low paid workers or the unemployed still in social housing or renting over 40 in social class DE sticking with Labour).
Blair of course even managed to win retirees over 65 in 1997 41% to 36% for the Tories and in 2001 he only lost them by 1% to Hague and in 2005 by just 4% to Howard. Even Brown only lost them by 13% in 2010 and so it really is a particularly post Brexit phenomonon.
For example Boris beat Corbyn by a vast 47% margin amongst over 65s in 2019 compared to the 24% margin Cameron beat Ed Miliband by in 2015 amongst retirees
The comparison is quite useful in itself.
But I think it will help perpetuate this idea that over time, demographics favour Labour as older Tory voters die and younger Labour voters turn 18.
Of course if that had been the case, Labour would have had a majority from at the very latest 1992.
Generally the average voter votes Labour from when they get their first vote as they leave school and continue to vote Labour as they attend university, if they do and through their 20s when they are renting free and single and early 30s. By their mid 30s if they are married and have bought their first property they start to consider voting Tory and by the time they reach retirement age in their 60s they will likely own their own home outright and continue voting Tory at every general election until they die
Although your analysis is correct, these patterns are not inevitable.
There's an assumption on here that those who are retired vote out of narrow self-interest, and of course many do. But it's worth remembering that retired people usually have kids, maybe in their 30s/40s, and often grandchildren. It doesn't take that much for older people to be persuaded that what may be in their own narrow self-interest is actually not in the interest of their kids or grandkids, especially if they see their kids prospects being tarnished by specific policies. I make no claim to nobility, but when I come to vote, given that I am comfortable retired, I'm more interested in what the offer is to my offspring and to the public good than to me personally.
Yes and they may also help their children get on the property ladder by giving them some money for a deposit to buy their first property too, thus turning their children into Tories by their 40s
There’s a problem, hyufd.
In order for the young to become tories, they need to be more than just homeowners. They need to be homeowners with equity, gifted to them via ever rising prices.
A house price crash would seriously screw the tories, I recon.
New - 30 Conservative MPs have now signed an amendment to stop aid cuts, including former Prime Minister Theresa May and ex cabinet minister Damian Green, and others including Tim Loughton, Johnny Mercer, Nus Ghani and Bob Seeley https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1400391811449847816
Already Somerville is an infinitely more capable Education Secretary than John Swinney. She's started blame-shifting before there's any blame needing shifted.
Edinburgh case numbers now hitting mid January numbers. 1st dose Vaccination is only 62%.
Yes but Scotland's mid January numbers were really quite low compared with the rest of the UK. I remember @Theuniondivvie being quite smug about it.
Really? I’m sure you have a link..
If so, apologies, I’d have hoped the perpetual avalanche of self regarding Covid nationalism on here and in the wider UKOK would have put me off that sort of thing for life.
I apologise if I have that wrong. I have a recollection of a series of posts pointing out (correctly) that Scotland was not suffering the same carnage as England and a suggestion that this was not unrelated to Nicola's more cautious approach. I recall suggesting in reply it might have rather more to do with the much lower prevalence of the Kent variant in Scotland at the time. As I say, if it wasn't you I apologise although it was a fair enough point.
Incidentally my son has been very active in school debating for a couple of years now and indeed has his house cup competition today. It is a very common motion that the voting of those over 75 should either be restricted or down weighted in some way so that the young are encouraged to take part and the policy mix is better focused in their direction.
Wheng I first heard of this idea I had some considerable difficultly in reconciling it with democracy but there is no doubt that our policy mix has been heavily influenced by the increasing number of the elderly and their propensity to vote. The triple lock is perhaps the most egregious example but there are many others. The motion tends to win amongst school kids!
Doing it on the basis of economic inactivity is clearly invidious and overlooks that many younger people are similarly inactive, as others have said.
The best argument in favour would be to weight votes by average remaining life expectancy, which would upweight the votes of the young on the grounds that they will suffer the consequences of today's policy decisions for much longer.
Yes the heart of the argument is that it tends to make government policy rather short termist and not put enough emphasis on things like global warming and environmental factors. I am not sure that is entirely accurate but it is what is contended.
It's a very old argument in a new guise. Once upon a time, the argument was that the lower classes should not be enfranchised (or alternatively, the franchise should be weighted in favour of the wealthy) because then they'd just vote for all sorts of free stuff.
Similar debate in the lead up to the US constitution. Though they preferred "better sort of people" to the term wealthy.
Start the Putney Debate Party - enfranchisement only for those with "a stake in the Publick Goode"
Headquarters at Putney Pies - just across the street from Putney Church.
On a serious note, the Roman "democracy" was actually an oligarchy massively weighted in favour of the rich. Quite specifically - no elections to the Senate, just a wealth qualification. Voting by tribes - think gerrymandering districts but on an epic scale. Oh, and moderate any ructions by a bit of slaughter of the lower classes.
Incidentally my son has been very active in school debating for a couple of years now and indeed has his house cup competition today. It is a very common motion that the voting of those over 75 should either be restricted or down weighted in some way so that the young are encouraged to take part and the policy mix is better focused in their direction.
Wheng I first heard of this idea I had some considerable difficultly in reconciling it with democracy but there is no doubt that our policy mix has been heavily influenced by the increasing number of the elderly and their propensity to vote. The triple lock is perhaps the most egregious example but there are many others. The motion tends to win amongst school kids!
Doing it on the basis of economic inactivity is clearly invidious and overlooks that many younger people are similarly inactive, as others have said.
The best argument in favour would be to weight votes by average remaining life expectancy, which would upweight the votes of the young on the grounds that they will suffer the consequences of today's policy decisions for much longer.
Yes the heart of the argument is that it tends to make government policy rather short termist and not put enough emphasis on things like global warming and environmental factors. I am not sure that is entirely accurate but it is what is contended.
It's a very old argument in a new guise. Once upon a time, the argument was that the lower classes should not be enfranchised (or alternatively, the franchise should be weighted in favour of the wealthy) because then they'd just vote for all sorts of free stuff.
And, if the elderly faithfully voted for the Left, we'd hear much less of the argument.
I don't think that's fair. When Labour were last in government they introduced postal voting on demand. Postal voting is used more frequently by the old. To vote against Labour.
On that sort of track record, if the elderly were voting faithfully for the Left you'd expect the Left to introduce a reform that ended up discouraging votes from the old.
Except the New Statesman figures include students amongst the figure for 'excluding retirees.'
As I showed last night IPSOS Mori had the Tories winning all classes amongst over 65s in 2019 and the Tories won ABs, C1s and C2s amongst 35-54s with Labour winning DEs amongst that age group.
Labour won all classes amongst 18 to 34s though so it is really only students and under 35s not yet on the property ladder Labour won, once workers neared 40 and got on the property ladder they voted Tory (with only those low paid workers or the unemployed still in social housing or renting over 40 in social class DE sticking with Labour).
Blair of course even managed to win retirees over 65 in 1997 41% to 36% for the Tories and in 2001 he only lost them by 1% to Hague and in 2005 by just 4% to Howard. Even Brown only lost them by 13% in 2010 and so it really is a particularly post Brexit phenomonon.
For example Boris beat Corbyn by a vast 47% margin amongst over 65s in 2019 compared to the 24% margin Cameron beat Ed Miliband by in 2015 amongst retirees
The comparison is quite useful in itself.
But I think it will help perpetuate this idea that over time, demographics favour Labour as older Tory voters die and younger Labour voters turn 18.
Of course if that had been the case, Labour would have had a majority from at the very latest 1992.
Generally the average voter votes Labour from when they get their first vote as they leave school and continue to vote Labour as they attend university, if they do and through their 20s when they are renting free and single and early 30s. By their mid 30s if they are married and have bought their first property they start to consider voting Tory and by the time they reach retirement age in their 60s they will likely own their own home outright and continue voting Tory at every general election until they die
Although your analysis is correct, these patterns are not inevitable.
There's an assumption on here that those who are retired vote out of narrow self-interest, and of course many do. But it's worth remembering that retired people usually have kids, maybe in their 30s/40s, and often grandchildren. It doesn't take that much for older people to be persuaded that what may be in their own narrow self-interest is actually not in the interest of their kids or grandkids, especially if they see their kids prospects being tarnished by specific policies. I make no claim to nobility, but when I come to vote, given that I am comfortable retired, I'm more interested in what the offer is to my offspring and to the public good than to me personally.
Yes and they may also help their children get on the property ladder by giving them some money for a deposit to buy their first property too, thus turning their children into Tories by their 40s
There’s a problem, hyufd.
In order for the young to become tories, they need to be more than just homeowners. They need to be homeowners with equity, gifted to them via ever rising prices.
A house price crash would seriously screw the tories, I recon.
To an extent but home ownership is the key, you are more likely to vote Tory if you own a semi detached property worth £200,000 in the Midlands for example than if you rent a £1 million property in central London
New - 30 Conservative MPs have now signed an amendment to stop aid cuts, including former Prime Minister Theresa May and ex cabinet minister Damian Green, and others including Tim Loughton, Johnny Mercer, Nus Ghani and Bob Seeley https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1400391811449847816
"As a system, foreign aid is a fraud and does nothing for inequality Kenan Malik
Donor nations use crippling loans as weapons to promote their own interests"
Who are these pensioners not paying council tax? Asking because I want to make sure my parents aren't missing out on something.
Ultimately, the problem is that no democracy has ever gone down the road of only letting net tax payers vote. Should those employed in the public sector get a vote?
Even if such a method was decided upon, what is net?
I've been working over twenty years now and I'm not convinced I'm a net tax payer. Sure I pay VAT (well, sorta), PAYE (well, sorta), council tax, road tax etc but what do I get back out of the system? I don't claim any benefit at all, but I do make use of state owned roads, my bins get collected and the street is lit at night. What value would I place on these?
Given the size of the deficit there can't be many net taxpayers.
In any case the amount of tax you pay is not a good metric of whether you are a net financial contributor to society. You can be paying tons of tax yet be a drain. Plenty are.
This kind of divide is only going to get worse once the oldies are watching 24 hour Tory propaganda on Gammon Boomer News.
Why are the left so scared of GBnews, they have Sky and the BBC
The BBC, particularly in the East, surely cannot be described as ‘left-wing’ by anyone, other than the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg!
Perhaps not left-wing, but it certainly has a particular set of values which it regards as self-evident. It is very keen on diversity as long as all the people it employs share those values. Questions are asked and programmes commissioned on the assumption that those values are so obviously true that if anyone disagrees the task is to find out why those people are wrong/lying, rather than to investigate to see if they might have a point.
I think that this is difficult because there is an argument that a national broadcaster should regard some values as self evident. Equality for women, anti-racism, the unacceptability of homophobia are perhaps simple examples. Those challenging those sort of values should in turn be challenged robustly because they are "British" values.
Where I think the BBC has lost its way is that it has applied those values in a highly simplistic way. So, the BBC has been extremely slow to report much of the Rotherham sex abuse stories because of fear that this might encourage racism, it has not wanted to challenge sexual discrimination in the Islamic community and it has been uncritical of much of the nonsense that comes from Stonewall. In many cases they have equiperated fairness with neutrality and this is simply wrong where British values are not being upheld.
I accept that it is a difficult balance, we are a diverse and multicultural nation and the BBC should reflect that but my criticism of them would rather be that they have not stood up for our values enough rather than they have been biased towards them.
I’d agree with almost all of that, apart from your mis-use of the word “equiperated”.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
Isn’t that a nice legal point: if someone says something which is true if according to their meaning of the word but not if you take the common meaning, is it then a lie? (E.g someone might use inflammable to mean not flammable when describing something).
This is why contracts are construed by the courts objectively, not subjectively. It doesn't really matter what you meant, it is what the reasonable person (I fear the Clapham Omnibus has been retired) would take from the words used.
But I really wouldn't expect my spontaneous contributions to this site to be examined quite so rigorously.
What about statements to police or in court: could someone who uses words in an idiosyncratic way find themselves being convicted of perjury?
Perjury has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If the accused was convincing that he meant something else that the words could mean then he would be able to argue that there was a reasonable doubt about whether he had the mens rea for the offence. Defamation or libel is of course different. There the objective test is again applied.
Except the New Statesman figures include students amongst the figure for 'excluding retirees.'
As I showed last night IPSOS Mori had the Tories winning all classes amongst over 65s in 2019 and the Tories won ABs, C1s and C2s amongst 35-54s with Labour winning DEs amongst that age group.
Labour won all classes amongst 18 to 34s though so it is really only students and under 35s not yet on the property ladder Labour won, once workers neared 40 and got on the property ladder they voted Tory (with only those low paid workers or the unemployed still in social housing or renting over 40 in social class DE sticking with Labour).
Blair of course even managed to win retirees over 65 in 1997 41% to 36% for the Tories and in 2001 he only lost them by 1% to Hague and in 2005 by just 4% to Howard. Even Brown only lost them by 13% in 2010 and so it really is a particularly post Brexit phenomonon.
In 1997 I was still working with 6 years to go before I could draw any of my pensions. I was a senior (in my speciality) NHS staff member, and my views were similar to those with whom I worked. In other words the issues which faced me then were not necessarily those which face me 20+ years later, although as far as I am concerned, I've stayed on the left. I wonder why I'm unusual.
“Pensions” may be a clue. I am guessing you are still relatively well off. Many others of your age group are not so secure. Do they trust a Labour Party that has shown little concern for them or do they trust a party which has, at least on the major issue before Covid, accepted the will of the electorate?
I am not a Tory and never voted for them but can easily understand why a party that seems to value Palestinians over poor people in their own country and refused to accept the result of the referendum and campaigned to have it reversed is less relevant to them.
I suspect you make fair points; although it is somewhat surprising to me that the people who in 1975 voted overwhelmingly for Europe appear to be so hostile to it now. I was active in the pro-Europe campaign in my 30's, in 1975, and most of those who thought it a Good Idea were my age.
Funnily enough, that's not what the BES found. Younger people in 1975 were less likely to vote remain.
Crudely, people who experienced WW2 themselves were very pro-EEC. They were increasingly thin on the ground by 2016. The cohort below them (roughly, born in late 40s/50s, young voters in '75, retiring or retired now) were the core of the unsuccessful leave vote of 1975 and the successful one of 2016.
Interesting, thanks. So the generation brought up on Biggles etc were the most hostile. Although, of course I accept that's a wildly crude over generalisation. I could think of a wide variety of other reasons why the cohort you describe could be negative towards the idea of Europe, and earlier and subsequent generations more supportive.
Incidentally my son has been very active in school debating for a couple of years now and indeed has his house cup competition today. It is a very common motion that the voting of those over 75 should either be restricted or down weighted in some way so that the young are encouraged to take part and the policy mix is better focused in their direction.
Wheng I first heard of this idea I had some considerable difficultly in reconciling it with democracy but there is no doubt that our policy mix has been heavily influenced by the increasing number of the elderly and their propensity to vote. The triple lock is perhaps the most egregious example but there are many others. The motion tends to win amongst school kids!
Doing it on the basis of economic inactivity is clearly invidious and overlooks that many younger people are similarly inactive, as others have said.
The best argument in favour would be to weight votes by average remaining life expectancy, which would upweight the votes of the young on the grounds that they will suffer the consequences of today's policy decisions for much longer.
Yes the heart of the argument is that it tends to make government policy rather short termist and not put enough emphasis on things like global warming and environmental factors. I am not sure that is entirely accurate but it is what is contended.
It's a very old argument in a new guise. Once upon a time, the argument was that the lower classes should not be enfranchised (or alternatively, the franchise should be weighted in favour of the wealthy) because then they'd just vote for all sorts of free stuff.
Similar debate in the lead up to the US constitution. Though they preferred "better sort of people" to the term wealthy.
Start the Putney Debate Party - enfranchisement only for those with "a stake in the Publick Goode"
Headquarters at Putney Pies - just across the street from Putney Church.
On a serious note, the Roman "democracy" was actually an oligarchy massively weighted in favour of the rich. Quite specifically - no elections to the Senate, just a wealth qualification. Voting by tribes - think gerrymandering districts but on an epic scale. Oh, and moderate any ructions by a bit of slaughter of the lower classes.
(The link is to a journalist/blogger who is a longstanding and outspoken supporter of HS2, so be aware he is incredibly critical of the Green stance on this - but you could probably deduce that from the link!)
Would the Greens rather we all used cars, rather than trains?
To be fair to the Greens, the case for HS2 is definitely not about getting people out of their cars.
That said, it has occurred to me that one argument for HS2 could be that car ownership is going to fall appreciably in the next 20 years.
But I'm not sure I'd want to make that argument if I were the government...
Well, it is, partly at any rate. Providing more capacity, meaning more local services so people don’t need cars, at any rate in suburban areas.
Hmmm. How many people drive to work because the trains are too crowded/too infrequent?
How many people would drive into central Birmingham if they had trains that were every ten minutes and had seats?
I don't know, is there research on this? For London, the train/tube/bus/bike are the only realistic options unless you're on £150,000+ a year and have a private car parking space available.
And will HS2 improve capacity into and out of Birmingham? Most of the EUS to MAN/LIV/GLA trains by-pass Birmingham through the Trent Valley.
It will include a whole new station at Curzon Street!
Okay, so which stations are going to get an increase in services into and out of New Street as a result?
Good question, to which the honest answer is I don’t think it’s been decided yet. The growth is in towns to the north (where I live) so obvious candidates would be Lichfield/Sutton Coldfield, Cannock/Hednesford and Codsall (which is west rather than north). But that may change by 2027.
Again, we come back to capacity. It takes a lot longer to turn around a Pendolino than to turn around say a class 323 and they’re a lot longer than local trains as well. So taking seven platforms (probably six in full use) out of New Street might free up the equivalent of twelve platforms for local services.
When I lived in that area I used to drive the ten minutes to Four Oaks and the trains were frequent and had lots of seats. The train service in and out of of Birmingham is better than Manchester or Leeds, and Bristol where I now live. Loads of people commute by train. The problem is capacity
New - 30 Conservative MPs have now signed an amendment to stop aid cuts, including former Prime Minister Theresa May and ex cabinet minister Damian Green, and others including Tim Loughton, Johnny Mercer, Nus Ghani and Bob Seeley https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1400391811449847816
"As a system, foreign aid is a fraud and does nothing for inequality Kenan Malik
Donor nations use crippling loans as weapons to promote their own interests"
Except the New Statesman figures include students amongst the figure for 'excluding retirees.'
As I showed last night IPSOS Mori had the Tories winning all classes amongst over 65s in 2019 and the Tories won ABs, C1s and C2s amongst 35-54s with Labour winning DEs amongst that age group.
Labour won all classes amongst 18 to 34s though so it is really only students and under 35s not yet on the property ladder Labour won, once workers neared 40 and got on the property ladder they voted Tory (with only those low paid workers or the unemployed still in social housing or renting over 40 in social class DE sticking with Labour).
Blair of course even managed to win retirees over 65 in 1997 41% to 36% for the Tories and in 2001 he only lost them by 1% to Hague and in 2005 by just 4% to Howard. Even Brown only lost them by 13% in 2010 and so it really is a particularly post Brexit phenomonon.
For example Boris beat Corbyn by a vast 47% margin amongst over 65s in 2019 compared to the 24% margin Cameron beat Ed Miliband by in 2015 amongst retirees
The comparison is quite useful in itself.
But I think it will help perpetuate this idea that over time, demographics favour Labour as older Tory voters die and younger Labour voters turn 18.
Of course if that had been the case, Labour would have had a majority from at the very latest 1992.
Generally the average voter votes Labour from when they get their first vote as they leave school and continue to vote Labour as they attend university, if they do and through their 20s when they are renting free and single and early 30s. By their mid 30s if they are married and have bought their first property they start to consider voting Tory and by the time they reach retirement age in their 60s they will likely own their own home outright and continue voting Tory at every general election until they die
Although your analysis is correct, these patterns are not inevitable.
There's an assumption on here that those who are retired vote out of narrow self-interest, and of course many do. But it's worth remembering that retired people usually have kids, maybe in their 30s/40s, and often grandchildren. It doesn't take that much for older people to be persuaded that what may be in their own narrow self-interest is actually not in the interest of their kids or grandkids, especially if they see their kids prospects being tarnished by specific policies. I make no claim to nobility, but when I come to vote, given that I am comfortable retired, I'm more interested in what the offer is to my offspring and to the public good than to me personally.
Yes and they may also help their children get on the property ladder by giving them some money for a deposit to buy their first property too, thus turning their children into Tories by their 40s
I hope this is not an automatic effect because I've just given my son some money to help him buy a house. I'd never have done this if it's going to turn him into a Tory.
“Bat cave solves mystery of deadly SARS virus — and suggests new outbreak could occur Chinese scientists find all the genetic building blocks of SARS in a single population of horseshoe bats.
“To clinch the case, a team led by Shi Zheng-Li and Cui Jie of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China sampled thousands of horseshoe bats in locations across the country3. “The most challenging work is to locate the caves, which usually are in remote areas,” says Cui. After finding a particular cave in Yunnan, southwestern China, in which the strains of coronavirus looked similar to human versions4,5, the researchers spent five years monitoring the bats that lived there, collecting fresh guano and taking anal swabs1.”
From the 2017 article, regarding SARS1: "Another outstanding question is how a virus from bats in Yunnan could travel to animals and humans around 1,000 kilometres away in Guangdong, without causing any suspected cases in Yunnan itself. That “has puzzled me a long time”, says Tu."
So the best identified source of SARS1 is 1000 miles from the first detected outbreak, just as it is 1000 miles from first detection of the Covid-19 outbreak. Mysteries in both cases (but in the latter case there's a possible vector via transport to the lab in Wuhan). But if such a jump was possible in the first case it was also possible in the second, without the lab. That's why the evidence is not compelling for me, although the lab explanation is certainly plausible.
Edit: Sorry, miles/km difference. But stil large distances
Possible, as ‘Tu’ says, but puzzling. This is more evidence AGAINST natural zoonosis
The (reasonably well demonstrated) existence of an (unknown) path from a bat cave to humans 1000km away with no plausible link to the lab in Wuhan for SARS1 is evidence against the existence of an (unknown, non-lab) link between a bat cave and Wuhan for SARS2?
I can't help feeling that you have already decided.
(The link is to a journalist/blogger who is a longstanding and outspoken supporter of HS2, so be aware he is incredibly critical of the Green stance on this - but you could probably deduce that from the link!)
Would the Greens rather we all used cars, rather than trains?
To be fair to the Greens, the case for HS2 is definitely not about getting people out of their cars.
That said, it has occurred to me that one argument for HS2 could be that car ownership is going to fall appreciably in the next 20 years.
But I'm not sure I'd want to make that argument if I were the government...
Well, it is, partly at any rate. Providing more capacity, meaning more local services so people don’t need cars, at any rate in suburban areas.
Hmmm. How many people drive to work because the trains are too crowded/too infrequent?
How many people would drive into central Birmingham if they had trains that were every ten minutes and had seats?
I don't know, is there research on this? For London, the train/tube/bus/bike are the only realistic options unless you're on £150,000+ a year and have a private car parking space available.
And will HS2 improve capacity into and out of Birmingham? Most of the EUS to MAN/LIV/GLA trains by-pass Birmingham through the Trent Valley.
It will include a whole new station at Curzon Street!
Okay, so which stations are going to get an increase in services into and out of New Street as a result?
Good question, to which the honest answer is I don’t think it’s been decided yet. The growth is in towns to the north (where I live) so obvious candidates would be Lichfield/Sutton Coldfield, Cannock/Hednesford and Codsall (which is west rather than north). But that may change by 2027.
Again, we come back to capacity. It takes a lot longer to turn around a Pendolino than to turn around say a class 323 and they’re a lot longer than local trains as well. So taking seven platforms (probably six in full use) out of New Street might free up the equivalent of twelve platforms for local services.
When I lived in that area I used to drive the ten minutes to Four Oaks and the trains were frequent and had lots of seats. The train service in and out of of Birmingham is better than Manchester or Leeds, and Bristol where I now live. Loads of people commute by train. The problem is capacity
TBF, the arguments also apply to Manchester and Leeds.
Agree with you about Bristol, trains round there are a complete joke. Apparently there are constant sounds of something spinning in Brunel’s grave and I’m sure the two are connected.
Except the New Statesman figures include students amongst the figure for 'excluding retirees.'
As I showed last night IPSOS Mori had the Tories winning all classes amongst over 65s in 2019 and the Tories won ABs, C1s and C2s amongst 35-54s with Labour winning DEs amongst that age group.
Labour won all classes amongst 18 to 34s though so it is really only students and under 35s not yet on the property ladder Labour won, once workers neared 40 and got on the property ladder they voted Tory (with only those low paid workers or the unemployed still in social housing or renting over 40 in social class DE sticking with Labour).
Blair of course even managed to win retirees over 65 in 1997 41% to 36% for the Tories and in 2001 he only lost them by 1% to Hague and in 2005 by just 4% to Howard. Even Brown only lost them by 13% in 2010 and so it really is a particularly post Brexit phenomonon.
For example Boris beat Corbyn by a vast 47% margin amongst over 65s in 2019 compared to the 24% margin Cameron beat Ed Miliband by in 2015 amongst retirees
The comparison is quite useful in itself.
But I think it will help perpetuate this idea that over time, demographics favour Labour as older Tory voters die and younger Labour voters turn 18.
Of course if that had been the case, Labour would have had a majority from at the very latest 1992.
Generally the average voter votes Labour from when they get their first vote as they leave school and continue to vote Labour as they attend university, if they do and through their 20s when they are renting free and single and early 30s. By their mid 30s if they are married and have bought their first property they start to consider voting Tory and by the time they reach retirement age in their 60s they will likely own their own home outright and continue voting Tory at every general election until they die
Although your analysis is correct, these patterns are not inevitable.
There's an assumption on here that those who are retired vote out of narrow self-interest, and of course many do. But it's worth remembering that retired people usually have kids, maybe in their 30s/40s, and often grandchildren. It doesn't take that much for older people to be persuaded that what may be in their own narrow self-interest is actually not in the interest of their kids or grandkids, especially if they see their kids prospects being tarnished by specific policies. I make no claim to nobility, but when I come to vote, given that I am comfortable retired, I'm more interested in what the offer is to my offspring and to the public good than to me personally.
Yes and they may also help their children get on the property ladder by giving them some money for a deposit to buy their first property too, thus turning their children into Tories by their 40s
I hope this is not an automatic effect because I've just given my son some money to help him buy a house. I'd never have done this if it's going to turn him into a Tory.
Maybe not a Tory, but perhaps a Lib Dem? You know, the kind of people who find Conservatism uncool but couldn't possibly vote Labour under Corbyn because he would tax their houses of antisemitism...
BREAKING: High Court rules the Home Office’s decision to house cross-channel migrants in a run-down barracks in Folkestone, where around 200 men then contracted Covid while sleeping in dormitories, broke the law – paving the way for damages claims. https://twitter.com/BBCDomC/status/1400388001512017923
Incidentally my son has been very active in school debating for a couple of years now and indeed has his house cup competition today. It is a very common motion that the voting of those over 75 should either be restricted or down weighted in some way so that the young are encouraged to take part and the policy mix is better focused in their direction.
Wheng I first heard of this idea I had some considerable difficultly in reconciling it with democracy but there is no doubt that our policy mix has been heavily influenced by the increasing number of the elderly and their propensity to vote. The triple lock is perhaps the most egregious example but there are many others. The motion tends to win amongst school kids!
Doing it on the basis of economic inactivity is clearly invidious and overlooks that many younger people are similarly inactive, as others have said.
The best argument in favour would be to weight votes by average remaining life expectancy, which would upweight the votes of the young on the grounds that they will suffer the consequences of today's policy decisions for much longer.
Yes the heart of the argument is that it tends to make government policy rather short termist and not put enough emphasis on things like global warming and environmental factors. I am not sure that is entirely accurate but it is what is contended.
It's a very old argument in a new guise. Once upon a time, the argument was that the lower classes should not be enfranchised (or alternatively, the franchise should be weighted in favour of the wealthy) because then they'd just vote for all sorts of free stuff.
Similar debate in the lead up to the US constitution. Though they preferred "better sort of people" to the term wealthy.
Start the Putney Debate Party - enfranchisement only for those with "a stake in the Publick Goode"
Headquarters at Putney Pies - just across the street from Putney Church.
On a serious note, the Roman "democracy" was actually an oligarchy massively weighted in favour of the rich. Quite specifically - no elections to the Senate, just a wealth qualification. Voting by tribes - think gerrymandering districts but on an epic scale. Oh, and moderate any ructions by a bit of slaughter of the lower classes.
Dont forget all the bribery
True.
Nothing as crude or ridiculous as the triple lock though.
“Bat cave solves mystery of deadly SARS virus — and suggests new outbreak could occur Chinese scientists find all the genetic building blocks of SARS in a single population of horseshoe bats.
“To clinch the case, a team led by Shi Zheng-Li and Cui Jie of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China sampled thousands of horseshoe bats in locations across the country3. “The most challenging work is to locate the caves, which usually are in remote areas,” says Cui. After finding a particular cave in Yunnan, southwestern China, in which the strains of coronavirus looked similar to human versions4,5, the researchers spent five years monitoring the bats that lived there, collecting fresh guano and taking anal swabs1.”
From the 2017 article, regarding SARS1: "Another outstanding question is how a virus from bats in Yunnan could travel to animals and humans around 1,000 kilometres away in Guangdong, without causing any suspected cases in Yunnan itself. That “has puzzled me a long time”, says Tu."
So the best identified source of SARS1 is 1000 miles from the first detected outbreak, just as it is 1000 miles from first detection of the Covid-19 outbreak. Mysteries in both cases (but in the latter case there's a possible vector via transport to the lab in Wuhan). But if such a jump was possible in the first case it was also possible in the second, without the lab. That's why the evidence is not compelling for me, although the lab explanation is certainly plausible.
Edit: Sorry, miles/km difference. But stil large distances
Possible, as ‘Tu’ says, but puzzling. This is more evidence AGAINST natural zoonosis
The (reasonably well demonstrated) existence of an (unknown) path from a bat cave to humans 1000km away with no plausible link to the lab in Wuhan for SARS1 is evidence against the existence of an (unknown, non-lab) link between a bat cave and Wuhan for SARS2?
I can't help feeling that you have already decided.
There's a fatal flaw in the lab theory. I just need to decide how best - and when - to lay it out. Leon's response will be interesting. Perhaps he'll be able to deal with it. I don't rule that out.
So are we thinking that NZ will bat into tomorrow before the declaration?
Without Trent Boult, their attack might themselves find taking wickets quite hard. As a result, I’m thinking they will want to bat twice to give them some respite.
An hour after tea today is when I’d expect Williamson to declare if they’re still batting.
Except the New Statesman figures include students amongst the figure for 'excluding retirees.'
As I showed last night IPSOS Mori had the Tories winning all classes amongst over 65s in 2019 and the Tories won ABs, C1s and C2s amongst 35-54s with Labour winning DEs amongst that age group.
Labour won all classes amongst 18 to 34s though so it is really only students and under 35s not yet on the property ladder Labour won, once workers neared 40 and got on the property ladder they voted Tory (with only those low paid workers or the unemployed still in social housing or renting over 40 in social class DE sticking with Labour).
Blair of course even managed to win retirees over 65 in 1997 41% to 36% for the Tories and in 2001 he only lost them by 1% to Hague and in 2005 by just 4% to Howard. Even Brown only lost them by 13% in 2010 and so it really is a particularly post Brexit phenomonon.
For example Boris beat Corbyn by a vast 47% margin amongst over 65s in 2019 compared to the 24% margin Cameron beat Ed Miliband by in 2015 amongst retirees
The comparison is quite useful in itself.
But I think it will help perpetuate this idea that over time, demographics favour Labour as older Tory voters die and younger Labour voters turn 18.
Of course if that had been the case, Labour would have had a majority from at the very latest 1992.
Generally the average voter votes Labour from when they get their first vote as they leave school and continue to vote Labour as they attend university, if they do and through their 20s when they are renting free and single and early 30s. By their mid 30s if they are married and have bought their first property they start to consider voting Tory and by the time they reach retirement age in their 60s they will likely own their own home outright and continue voting Tory at every general election until they die
Although your analysis is correct, these patterns are not inevitable.
There's an assumption on here that those who are retired vote out of narrow self-interest, and of course many do. But it's worth remembering that retired people usually have kids, maybe in their 30s/40s, and often grandchildren. It doesn't take that much for older people to be persuaded that what may be in their own narrow self-interest is actually not in the interest of their kids or grandkids, especially if they see their kids prospects being tarnished by specific policies. I make no claim to nobility, but when I come to vote, given that I am comfortable retired, I'm more interested in what the offer is to my offspring and to the public good than to me personally.
Yes and they may also help their children get on the property ladder by giving them some money for a deposit to buy their first property too, thus turning their children into Tories by their 40s
I hope this is not an automatic effect because I've just given my son some money to help him buy a house. I'd never have done this if it's going to turn him into a Tory.
Maybe not a Tory, but perhaps a Lib Dem? You know, the kind of people who find Conservatism uncool but couldn't possibly vote Labour under Corbyn because he would tax their houses of antisemitism...
That will also lead to a money reclaim. Boy can stand on his own two feet if he's going to misbehave like that.
So are we thinking that NZ will bat into tomorrow before the declaration?
Without Trent Boult, their attack might themselves find taking wickets quite hard. As a result, I’m thinking they will want to bat twice to give them some respite.
An hour after tea today is when I’d expect Williamson to declare if they’re still batting.
I think Wagner will be a nightmare on this pitch. Unlike the England attack he will really mix it up a bit.
(The link is to a journalist/blogger who is a longstanding and outspoken supporter of HS2, so be aware he is incredibly critical of the Green stance on this - but you could probably deduce that from the link!)
Would the Greens rather we all used cars, rather than trains?
Yes, Green opposition to HS2 is absurd. Surely the Greens should be consistently seeking to divert cars and freight off the roads on to rails. And advocating radical transport solutions, electric tramways in cities and so forth.
The inevitable ecological damage caused by such schemes is a 'price worth paying' for the greater good, surely?
Indeed. The single biggest advantage of HS2 is the capacity it frees up for freight trains - each one of which can take a hundred long-distance lorry journeys off the roads. Every Green should be massively in favour of it, but they appear instead to be fans of smelly Diesel engines used to transport stuff.
Take what freight off the roads though ?
I can understand using rail from Felixstowe docks to some Amazon distribution site.
But goods from a supplier to a factory and then products from the factory to a customer are not going to be sent by rail.
Right now, huge amounts of stuff goes from Felixstowe docks to Amazon distribution sites by road, one container at a time. They’re spending hundreds of millions on upgrading the A14 to cope with all the lorries, when a lot of it could be shipped both more cheaply and faster by rail. Yes, you still need lorries for local deliveries, but getting long distance trucks off the roads would be a huge benefit.
Apparently not just London that has lost 100,000s during pandemic and lots of middle class moving away. Apparently Paris is suffering the same for exactly the same reasons, peoppe have realised they can WFH and do so from a much bigger house in the countryside / small towns.
(The link is to a journalist/blogger who is a longstanding and outspoken supporter of HS2, so be aware he is incredibly critical of the Green stance on this - but you could probably deduce that from the link!)
Would the Greens rather we all used cars, rather than trains?
To be fair to the Greens, the case for HS2 is definitely not about getting people out of their cars.
That said, it has occurred to me that one argument for HS2 could be that car ownership is going to fall appreciably in the next 20 years.
But I'm not sure I'd want to make that argument if I were the government...
Why would car ownership fall ?
If there is any fundamental shift away from city living to wanting bigger homes with gardens or working from home then the opposite will happen.
I was thinking that ownership will fall if cars become prohibitively expensive.
But why would that happen ?
I suppose the government could tax them into being prohibitively expensive but do you think that would happen
Incidentally my son has been very active in school debating for a couple of years now and indeed has his house cup competition today. It is a very common motion that the voting of those over 75 should either be restricted or down weighted in some way so that the young are encouraged to take part and the policy mix is better focused in their direction.
Wheng I first heard of this idea I had some considerable difficultly in reconciling it with democracy but there is no doubt that our policy mix has been heavily influenced by the increasing number of the elderly and their propensity to vote. The triple lock is perhaps the most egregious example but there are many others. The motion tends to win amongst school kids!
Doing it on the basis of economic inactivity is clearly invidious and overlooks that many younger people are similarly inactive, as others have said.
The best argument in favour would be to weight votes by average remaining life expectancy, which would upweight the votes of the young on the grounds that they will suffer the consequences of today's policy decisions for much longer.
Yes the heart of the argument is that it tends to make government policy rather short termist and not put enough emphasis on things like global warming and environmental factors. I am not sure that is entirely accurate but it is what is contended.
It's a very old argument in a new guise. Once upon a time, the argument was that the lower classes should not be enfranchised (or alternatively, the franchise should be weighted in favour of the wealthy) because then they'd just vote for all sorts of free stuff.
Similar debate in the lead up to the US constitution. Though they preferred "better sort of people" to the term wealthy.
Start the Putney Debate Party - enfranchisement only for those with "a stake in the Publick Goode"
Headquarters at Putney Pies - just across the street from Putney Church.
On a serious note, the Roman "democracy" was actually an oligarchy massively weighted in favour of the rich. Quite specifically - no elections to the Senate, just a wealth qualification. Voting by tribes - think gerrymandering districts but on an epic scale. Oh, and moderate any ructions by a bit of slaughter of the lower classes.
Dont forget all the bribery
True.
Nothing as crude or ridiculous as the triple lock though.
The triple lock has not delivered huge gains.
Over 10 years it is about a tenner a week over CPI on the basic pension.
Apparently not just London that has lost 100,000s during pandemic and lots of middle class moving away. Apparently Paris is suffering the same for exactly the same reasons, peoppe have realised they can WFH and do so from a much bigger house in the countryside / small towns.
Was it possible to estimate from the London voting figures how many people may have left the capital?
Except the New Statesman figures include students amongst the figure for 'excluding retirees.'
As I showed last night IPSOS Mori had the Tories winning all classes amongst over 65s in 2019 and the Tories won ABs, C1s and C2s amongst 35-54s with Labour winning DEs amongst that age group.
Labour won all classes amongst 18 to 34s though so it is really only students and under 35s not yet on the property ladder Labour won, once workers neared 40 and got on the property ladder they voted Tory (with only those low paid workers or the unemployed still in social housing or renting over 40 in social class DE sticking with Labour).
Blair of course even managed to win retirees over 65 in 1997 41% to 36% for the Tories and in 2001 he only lost them by 1% to Hague and in 2005 by just 4% to Howard. Even Brown only lost them by 13% in 2010 and so it really is a particularly post Brexit phenomonon.
For example Boris beat Corbyn by a vast 47% margin amongst over 65s in 2019 compared to the 24% margin Cameron beat Ed Miliband by in 2015 amongst retirees
The comparison is quite useful in itself.
But I think it will help perpetuate this idea that over time, demographics favour Labour as older Tory voters die and younger Labour voters turn 18.
Of course if that had been the case, Labour would have had a majority from at the very latest 1992.
Generally the average voter votes Labour from when they get their first vote as they leave school and continue to vote Labour as they attend university, if they do and through their 20s when they are renting free and single and early 30s. By their mid 30s if they are married and have bought their first property they start to consider voting Tory and by the time they reach retirement age in their 60s they will likely own their own home outright and continue voting Tory at every general election until they die
Although your analysis is correct, these patterns are not inevitable.
There's an assumption on here that those who are retired vote out of narrow self-interest, and of course many do. But it's worth remembering that retired people usually have kids, maybe in their 30s/40s, and often grandchildren. It doesn't take that much for older people to be persuaded that what may be in their own narrow self-interest is actually not in the interest of their kids or grandkids, especially if they see their kids prospects being tarnished by specific policies. I make no claim to nobility, but when I come to vote, given that I am comfortable retired, I'm more interested in what the offer is to my offspring and to the public good than to me personally.
Yes and they may also help their children get on the property ladder by giving them some money for a deposit to buy their first property too, thus turning their children into Tories by their 40s
I hope this is not an automatic effect because I've just given my son some money to help him buy a house. I'd never have done this if it's going to turn him into a Tory.
Maybe not a Tory, but perhaps a Lib Dem? You know, the kind of people who find Conservatism uncool but couldn't possibly vote Labour under Corbyn because he would tax their houses of antisemitism...
That will also lead to a money reclaim. Boy can stand on his own two feet if he's going to misbehave like that.
Why do I have a sudden vision of Kinabalu Senior & Junior at the polling station next election day?
Remarkable Newsweek article, telling the story of how a bunch of online amateur Sherlocks sleuthed the lab leak hypothesis, and made it mainstream
Simultaneously dispiriting and encouraging. Dispiriting because of the terrible lies and evasions from China, and the duplicitous omerta from western scientists, encouraging because it shows that concerned citizens around the world can make a massive difference, just with a phone, a laptop and the Net
It is also highly persuasive, if you need to be persuaded that it came from the lab
You seem to have decided well in advance of any evidence!
Maybe your alien chums brought it with them from Zog, on one of their survelling outings?
I think the key point is that the lab leak hypothesis is most dramatic and exciting. Leon has a journalist’s soul, which means drama and excitement (and, preferably, outrage where possible) are key heuristics. You can’t blame journalists. Their job is grabbing attention from a busy populace, and that’s what works. Highlighting the unrepresentative and unusual, often in fields where they have little background (because they don’t really have the time for expertise).
Sometimes they’re even right. Although these are not the metrics to be used to best judge what is and is not right, sheer chance will occasionally cause a bullseye.
Not remotely convinced at the moment, but I’m open to actual evidence.
Where is the ‘actual evidence’ of a natural non-lab origin for this novel bat coronavirus? How did it get from a cave in Yunnan to the centre of Wuhan, 1000 miles away? How did it make that geographical and zoological leap from the cave?
A Yunnanese cave which was, of course, being visited by teams of scientists collecting dozens of novel bat coronaviruses, scientists who then took their samples back to their globally unique lab. 1000 miles away. In the centre of Wuhan
The problem is that pretty much everyone who I've seen pushing this theory has appeared to be a seeker-after-dramatic-story rather than an objective seeker-after-truth.
We've had that godawful Daily Mail expose that "proved" it was "physically impossible" to be natural due to four charged components in a row. Which was plain wrong, to the point where whoever wrote it was either fundamentally ignorant of the subject or deliberately trying to mislead (it took moments for those who did know anything about the subject to point to several thousand such occurrences in the human genome alone.
We've had people breathlessly telling us about "gain of function" because scientists study change of host range, change of transmissibility, and change in antigenicity. But as a category, it sounds like "make viruses worse!" and SARS-CoV-2's lengthy presymptomatic period and duration of infectiveness and viral load (the things that make it bad for us) aren't usually studied in that section. Those who aren't expert in the subject can wrap them all up together and assume that "gain of function research going on here" means "anything that makes viruses bad, must be biological warfare."
Being able to switch on and off functions like that would take a level of knowledge way beyond anything we've ever seen. Not impossible, but has been pointed out, we'd see other capabilities go hand-in-glove with that - such as a skillset with mRNA that would make the mRNA vaccines we've since developed in the West look like sixth-form projects against whatever China would have been able to roll out at far shorter timescales and more effectively (and gain the plaudits for saving the world). Not only haven't they done so, there are no hints that they have the technology to do so.
Except the New Statesman figures include students amongst the figure for 'excluding retirees.'
As I showed last night IPSOS Mori had the Tories winning all classes amongst over 65s in 2019 and the Tories won ABs, C1s and C2s amongst 35-54s with Labour winning DEs amongst that age group.
Labour won all classes amongst 18 to 34s though so it is really only students and under 35s not yet on the property ladder Labour won, once workers neared 40 and got on the property ladder they voted Tory (with only those low paid workers or the unemployed still in social housing or renting over 40 in social class DE sticking with Labour).
Blair of course even managed to win retirees over 65 in 1997 41% to 36% for the Tories and in 2001 he only lost them by 1% to Hague and in 2005 by just 4% to Howard. Even Brown only lost them by 13% in 2010 and so it really is a particularly post Brexit phenomonon.
For example Boris beat Corbyn by a vast 47% margin amongst over 65s in 2019 compared to the 24% margin Cameron beat Ed Miliband by in 2015 amongst retirees
The comparison is quite useful in itself.
But I think it will help perpetuate this idea that over time, demographics favour Labour as older Tory voters die and younger Labour voters turn 18.
Of course if that had been the case, Labour would have had a majority from at the very latest 1992.
Generally the average voter votes Labour from when they get their first vote as they leave school and continue to vote Labour as they attend university, if they do and through their 20s when they are renting free and single and early 30s. By their mid 30s if they are married and have bought their first property they start to consider voting Tory and by the time they reach retirement age in their 60s they will likely own their own home outright and continue voting Tory at every general election until they die
Although your analysis is correct, these patterns are not inevitable.
There's an assumption on here that those who are retired vote out of narrow self-interest, and of course many do. But it's worth remembering that retired people usually have kids, maybe in their 30s/40s, and often grandchildren. It doesn't take that much for older people to be persuaded that what may be in their own narrow self-interest is actually not in the interest of their kids or grandkids, especially if they see their kids prospects being tarnished by specific policies. I make no claim to nobility, but when I come to vote, given that I am comfortable retired, I'm more interested in what the offer is to my offspring and to the public good than to me personally.
Yes and they may also help their children get on the property ladder by giving them some money for a deposit to buy their first property too, thus turning their children into Tories by their 40s
I hope this is not an automatic effect because I've just given my son some money to help him buy a house. I'd never have done this if it's going to turn him into a Tory.
Maybe not a Tory, but perhaps a Lib Dem? You know, the kind of people who find Conservatism uncool but couldn't possibly vote Labour under Corbyn because he would tax their houses of antisemitism...
Oh dear me no.... Conservatism isn't "uncool". Conservatism is barbaric and dictatorial.
And, in all fairness to Labour, I do not remember that Corbyn said he was going to tax people's houses. The furthest he got was to undertake to "think about" site value taxation.
This is a long-established Liberal policy, and a very good one too. It could have been this half-promise that caused so many peple to vote Labour in 2017.
So go ahead, Mr Kinabalu. It will be a very good thing if you son turns into a Lib Dem. What constituency is he thinking of buying a house in? Chesham and Amersham could be an interesting place to live.
Remarkable Newsweek article, telling the story of how a bunch of online amateur Sherlocks sleuthed the lab leak hypothesis, and made it mainstream
Simultaneously dispiriting and encouraging. Dispiriting because of the terrible lies and evasions from China, and the duplicitous omerta from western scientists, encouraging because it shows that concerned citizens around the world can make a massive difference, just with a phone, a laptop and the Net
It is also highly persuasive, if you need to be persuaded that it came from the lab
You seem to have decided well in advance of any evidence!
Maybe your alien chums brought it with them from Zog, on one of their survelling outings?
I think the key point is that the lab leak hypothesis is most dramatic and exciting. Leon has a journalist’s soul, which means drama and excitement (and, preferably, outrage where possible) are key heuristics. You can’t blame journalists. Their job is grabbing attention from a busy populace, and that’s what works. Highlighting the unrepresentative and unusual, often in fields where they have little background (because they don’t really have the time for expertise).
Sometimes they’re even right. Although these are not the metrics to be used to best judge what is and is not right, sheer chance will occasionally cause a bullseye.
Not remotely convinced at the moment, but I’m open to actual evidence.
Where is the ‘actual evidence’ of a natural non-lab origin for this novel bat coronavirus? How did it get from a cave in Yunnan to the centre of Wuhan, 1000 miles away? How did it make that geographical and zoological leap from the cave?
A Yunnanese cave which was, of course, being visited by teams of scientists collecting dozens of novel bat coronaviruses, scientists who then took their samples back to their globally unique lab. 1000 miles away. In the centre of Wuhan
The problem is that pretty much everyone who I've seen pushing this theory has appeared to be a seeker-after-dramatic-story rather than an objective seeker-after-truth.
We've had that godawful Daily Mail expose that "proved" it was "physically impossible" to be natural due to four charged components in a row. Which was plain wrong, to the point where whoever wrote it was either fundamentally ignorant of the subject or deliberately trying to mislead (it took moments for those who did know anything about the subject to point to several thousand such occurrences in the human genome alone.
We've had people breathlessly telling us about "gain of function" because scientists study change of host range, change of transmissibility, and change in antigenicity. But as a category, it sounds like "make viruses worse!" and SARS-CoV-2's lengthy presymptomatic period and duration of infectiveness and viral load (the things that make it bad for us) aren't usually studied in that section. Those who aren't expert in the subject can wrap them all up together and assume that "gain of function research going on here" means "anything that makes viruses bad, must be biological warfare."
Being able to switch on and off functions like that would take a level of knowledge way beyond anything we've ever seen. Not impossible, but has been pointed out, we'd see other capabilities go hand-in-glove with that - such as a skillset with mRNA that would make the mRNA vaccines we've since developed in the West look like sixth-form projects against whatever China would have been able to roll out at far shorter timescales and more effectively (and gain the plaudits for saving the world). Not only haven't they done so, there are no hints that they have the technology to do so.
(1/2)
Because, though, that all makes for a really great story, it's all glossed over. Either ignored, or diminished, or insulted. While any anecdotal or circumstantial evidence in favour of the story is cherry-picked and highlighted and emphasised. (Stuff like the zoonotic origin being described as only supported by 'precedent' with the word precedent in scare quotes - when by that it is meant that it's only supported by the fact that literally every previous virus to make the jump, all the millions since the dawn of time, did it just that way and no virus has ever done it before in the way that the story requires).
It does make one take these earnest and breathless links with an entire chip-shop-worth of salt. Which can be a shame if there's something in it.
Personally, I could easily accept "they were studying bat coronaviruses because they were worried about another SARS or MERS and had an accident." It would need genuine evidence to back it up (a God of the Gaps argument that we can't trace it all the way back to Bartok the Bat in Cave 16 in Yunnan province and what he did doesn't cut the mustard, because it's far more common to be unable to trace a zoonotic jump all the way back than otherwise. But this doesn't mean that there was a secret virus lab in the 1800s run by a Victorian Dr Moreau that designed the most recent of the four cold coronaviruses, either). However, this always gets swept into a "they were designing it and it was a mad scientist experiment run amuck!" theme as well, which runs into multiple implausibilities that have been highlighted.
It's an Achilles heel of storylovers - to push the more dramatic ones too far. (2/2)
So are we thinking that NZ will bat into tomorrow before the declaration?
Without Trent Boult, their attack might themselves find taking wickets quite hard. As a result, I’m thinking they will want to bat twice to give them some respite.
An hour after tea today is when I’d expect Williamson to declare if they’re still batting.
I think Wagner will be a nightmare on this pitch. Unlike the England attack he will really mix it up a bit.
He’s a very fine bowler. But Southee is a Robinson-style bowler. De Grandhomme isn’t a strike bowler, and Jamieson with all his exciting height and pace has AIUI never bowled at Lord’s. I’m thinking this pitch is slow which won’t help Santner. So I’m wondering how much support there will be.
So unless England bat like complete idiots, it would be better to budget for a hard couple of days, bat two sessions and then bowl last on a worn pitch.
And also - although it slightly contradicts my point above - remember Williamson is quite attacking. He likes to get on with a match. Get them in tonight and have two goes with the new ball, will likely be his thinking.
So I stand by my prediction. Declaration an hour after tea, unless there’s a dramatic collapse.
Remarkable Newsweek article, telling the story of how a bunch of online amateur Sherlocks sleuthed the lab leak hypothesis, and made it mainstream
Simultaneously dispiriting and encouraging. Dispiriting because of the terrible lies and evasions from China, and the duplicitous omerta from western scientists, encouraging because it shows that concerned citizens around the world can make a massive difference, just with a phone, a laptop and the Net
It is also highly persuasive, if you need to be persuaded that it came from the lab
You seem to have decided well in advance of any evidence!
Maybe your alien chums brought it with them from Zog, on one of their survelling outings?
I think the key point is that the lab leak hypothesis is most dramatic and exciting. Leon has a journalist’s soul, which means drama and excitement (and, preferably, outrage where possible) are key heuristics. You can’t blame journalists. Their job is grabbing attention from a busy populace, and that’s what works. Highlighting the unrepresentative and unusual, often in fields where they have little background (because they don’t really have the time for expertise).
Sometimes they’re even right. Although these are not the metrics to be used to best judge what is and is not right, sheer chance will occasionally cause a bullseye.
Not remotely convinced at the moment, but I’m open to actual evidence.
Where is the ‘actual evidence’ of a natural non-lab origin for this novel bat coronavirus? How did it get from a cave in Yunnan to the centre of Wuhan, 1000 miles away? How did it make that geographical and zoological leap from the cave?
A Yunnanese cave which was, of course, being visited by teams of scientists collecting dozens of novel bat coronaviruses, scientists who then took their samples back to their globally unique lab. 1000 miles away. In the centre of Wuhan
Why are you assuming the virus came from the cave ? There is no evidence of that.
Where is the evidence the virus came from a wet market?
It quite possibly didn't. What is known pretty well for certain, from genetic analysis of the virus from those infected (and subsequent diverse mutations), is that these were some of the earliest cases. That doesn't, of course, mean that they were the very first case(s).
But there is essentially zero direct evidence that it came from the particular cave everyone is on about.
Gareth Southgate says "some people aren't understanding the message" after fans at the Riverside Stadium jeered when players took a knee before England's friendly win over Austria.
When the stadiums are full again next seasons, I think there is going to be a big bust up.
The 2007 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak occurred when the discharge of infectious effluent from a laboratory in Surrey led to foot-and-mouth disease infections at four nearby farms.
On these, absolutely. And for every recorded case like this there will be several near-misses. I'm reminded of my own snafu as a young post-grad, where I used the wrong bottle containing a radioactive isotope at much higher concentration than it should have been. At the end of the experiment, the (supposed to be negligibly radioactive) solution was to be washed down the drain. Pre-discposal checks (which involved verifying the radioactivity of the solution) identified my error and instead the solution was left in a shielded cupboard for a few months to decay sufficiently (short half-life, fortunately). The local radiation protection advisor had to be notified and I was left very red-faced, as were other staff as failings in the storage and labelling system for the isotopes were identified. Would not have been a big issue if it had gone down the drain (small quantity - it would have been quickly diluted and undetectable above background) but we'd have got into a lot of trouble, rightly. It's easy to make mistakes.*
Could very well be the lab. If so, we need to know, work out what went wrong and fix it.
But if it's not the lab and we just blame the lab anyway, then we miss the opportunity to identify the real vector and maybe prevent that from happening again.
*You'll all be glad to know I don't do anything with radioactive isotopes any more!
So are we thinking that NZ will bat into tomorrow before the declaration?
Without Trent Boult, their attack might themselves find taking wickets quite hard. As a result, I’m thinking they will want to bat twice to give them some respite.
An hour after tea today is when I’d expect Williamson to declare if they’re still batting.
I think Wagner will be a nightmare on this pitch. Unlike the England attack he will really mix it up a bit.
He’s a very fine bowler. But Southee is a Robinson-style bowler. De Grandhomme isn’t a strike bowler, and Jamieson with all his exciting height and pace has AIUI never bowled at Lord’s. I’m thinking this pitch is slow which won’t help Santner. So I’m wondering how much support there will be.
So unless England bat like complete idiots, it would be better to budget for a hard couple of days, bat two sessions and then bowl last on a worn pitch.
And also - although it slightly contradicts my point above - remember Williamson is quite attacking. He likes to get on with a match. Get them in tonight and have two goes with the new ball, will likely be his thinking.
So I stand by my prediction. Declaration an hour after tea, unless there’s a dramatic collapse.
"unless England bat like complete idiots": what are the chances, eh?
I see again Wood isn't getting any of the new ball....instead plodder is on first change... what's the point of picking a tear away "enforcer" (as England call him) if he only gets to bowl with a pudding.
(The link is to a journalist/blogger who is a longstanding and outspoken supporter of HS2, so be aware he is incredibly critical of the Green stance on this - but you could probably deduce that from the link!)
Would the Greens rather we all used cars, rather than trains?
To be fair to the Greens, the case for HS2 is definitely not about getting people out of their cars.
That said, it has occurred to me that one argument for HS2 could be that car ownership is going to fall appreciably in the next 20 years.
But I'm not sure I'd want to make that argument if I were the government...
Well, it is, partly at any rate. Providing more capacity, meaning more local services so people don’t need cars, at any rate in suburban areas.
Hmmm. How many people drive to work because the trains are too crowded/too infrequent?
How many people would drive into central Birmingham if they had trains that were every ten minutes and had seats?
I don't know, is there research on this? For London, the train/tube/bus/bike are the only realistic options unless you're on £150,000+ a year and have a private car parking space available.
And will HS2 improve capacity into and out of Birmingham? Most of the EUS to MAN/LIV/GLA trains by-pass Birmingham through the Trent Valley.
It will include a whole new station at Curzon Street!
Okay, so which stations are going to get an increase in services into and out of New Street as a result?
Good question, to which the honest answer is I don’t think it’s been decided yet. The growth is in towns to the north (where I live) so obvious candidates would be Lichfield/Sutton Coldfield, Cannock/Hednesford and Codsall (which is west rather than north). But that may change by 2027.
Again, we come back to capacity. It takes a lot longer to turn around a Pendolino than to turn around say a class 323 and they’re a lot longer than local trains as well. So taking seven platforms (probably six in full use) out of New Street might free up the equivalent of twelve platforms for local services.
New Street is also a massive bottleneck in the whole UK rail system, with so many lines going through the station. It’s not possible to expand it, as it’s surrounded on all sides, the new station half a mile away at Curzon St allows much easier access for the HS2 platforms and tracks.
If Portugal has to be removed from the Green List because of the idiotic holding of a football match between two English teams in Porto or wherever it was, it'll be one of the most stupid things that's happened recently regarding the pandemic.
Except the New Statesman figures include students amongst the figure for 'excluding retirees.'
As I showed last night IPSOS Mori had the Tories winning all classes amongst over 65s in 2019 and the Tories won ABs, C1s and C2s amongst 35-54s with Labour winning DEs amongst that age group.
Labour won all classes amongst 18 to 34s though so it is really only students and under 35s not yet on the property ladder Labour won, once workers neared 40 and got on the property ladder they voted Tory (with only those low paid workers or the unemployed still in social housing or renting over 40 in social class DE sticking with Labour).
Blair of course even managed to win retirees over 65 in 1997 41% to 36% for the Tories and in 2001 he only lost them by 1% to Hague and in 2005 by just 4% to Howard. Even Brown only lost them by 13% in 2010 and so it really is a particularly post Brexit phenomonon.
For example Boris beat Corbyn by a vast 47% margin amongst over 65s in 2019 compared to the 24% margin Cameron beat Ed Miliband by in 2015 amongst retirees
The comparison is quite useful in itself.
But I think it will help perpetuate this idea that over time, demographics favour Labour as older Tory voters die and younger Labour voters turn 18.
Of course if that had been the case, Labour would have had a majority from at the very latest 1992.
Generally the average voter votes Labour from when they get their first vote as they leave school and continue to vote Labour as they attend university, if they do and through their 20s when they are renting free and single and early 30s. By their mid 30s if they are married and have bought their first property they start to consider voting Tory and by the time they reach retirement age in their 60s they will likely own their own home outright and continue voting Tory at every general election until they die
Although your analysis is correct, these patterns are not inevitable.
There's an assumption on here that those who are retired vote out of narrow self-interest, and of course many do. But it's worth remembering that retired people usually have kids, maybe in their 30s/40s, and often grandchildren. It doesn't take that much for older people to be persuaded that what may be in their own narrow self-interest is actually not in the interest of their kids or grandkids, especially if they see their kids prospects being tarnished by specific policies. I make no claim to nobility, but when I come to vote, given that I am comfortable retired, I'm more interested in what the offer is to my offspring and to the public good than to me personally.
Yes and they may also help their children get on the property ladder by giving them some money for a deposit to buy their first property too, thus turning their children into Tories by their 40s
I hope this is not an automatic effect because I've just given my son some money to help him buy a house. I'd never have done this if it's going to turn him into a Tory.
Maybe not a Tory, but perhaps a Lib Dem? You know, the kind of people who find Conservatism uncool but couldn't possibly vote Labour under Corbyn because he would tax their houses of antisemitism...
That will also lead to a money reclaim. Boy can stand on his own two feet if he's going to misbehave like that.
Again, I'm having to recalibrate kinabalu's age, if he has a grown up son.
Anyway, the assumption that older people only vote Conservative out of self-interest needs challenging. I have become more Conservative - well, more anti-Labour - as I have aged because I have children, and because I have no confidence in Labour to deliver the sort of future I want for them. I have little confidence in the Conservatives, either, mind. But my primary political motivation is keeping the sorts of people who hang around with Jeremy Corbyn out of power. Doing so was important when I just had myself to worry about, but vital now I have children.
So are we thinking that NZ will bat into tomorrow before the declaration?
Without Trent Boult, their attack might themselves find taking wickets quite hard. As a result, I’m thinking they will want to bat twice to give them some respite.
An hour after tea today is when I’d expect Williamson to declare if they’re still batting.
I think Wagner will be a nightmare on this pitch. Unlike the England attack he will really mix it up a bit.
He’s a very fine bowler. But Southee is a Robinson-style bowler. De Grandhomme isn’t a strike bowler, and Jamieson with all his exciting height and pace has AIUI never bowled at Lord’s. I’m thinking this pitch is slow which won’t help Santner. So I’m wondering how much support there will be.
So unless England bat like complete idiots, it would be better to budget for a hard couple of days, bat two sessions and then bowl last on a worn pitch.
And also - although it slightly contradicts my point above - remember Williamson is quite attacking. He likes to get on with a match. Get them in tonight and have two goes with the new ball, will likely be his thinking.
So I stand by my prediction. Declaration an hour after tea, unless there’s a dramatic collapse.
Now you see the mistake you have made there...unless England bat like complete idiots....and England really don't bat deep at all with this team.
An astonishing data security blunder saw the personal data of Special Forces soldiers circulating around WhatsApp in a leaked British Army spreadsheet.
The document ... contained details of all 1,182 British soldiers recently promoted from corporal to sergeant – including those in sensitive units such as the Special Air Service, Special Boat Service and the Special Reconnaissance Regiment. https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/02/uk_special_forces_data_breach_whatsapp/
New - 30 Conservative MPs have now signed an amendment to stop aid cuts, including former Prime Minister Theresa May and ex cabinet minister Damian Green, and others including Tim Loughton, Johnny Mercer, Nus Ghani and Bob Seeley https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1400391811449847816
I'm told they have the numbers - and the government will reverse this without it going to a vote.
(The link is to a journalist/blogger who is a longstanding and outspoken supporter of HS2, so be aware he is incredibly critical of the Green stance on this - but you could probably deduce that from the link!)
Would the Greens rather we all used cars, rather than trains?
To be fair to the Greens, the case for HS2 is definitely not about getting people out of their cars.
That said, it has occurred to me that one argument for HS2 could be that car ownership is going to fall appreciably in the next 20 years.
But I'm not sure I'd want to make that argument if I were the government...
Well, it is, partly at any rate. Providing more capacity, meaning more local services so people don’t need cars, at any rate in suburban areas.
Hmmm. How many people drive to work because the trains are too crowded/too infrequent?
How many people would drive into central Birmingham if they had trains that were every ten minutes and had seats?
I don't know, is there research on this? For London, the train/tube/bus/bike are the only realistic options unless you're on £150,000+ a year and have a private car parking space available.
And will HS2 improve capacity into and out of Birmingham? Most of the EUS to MAN/LIV/GLA trains by-pass Birmingham through the Trent Valley.
It will include a whole new station at Curzon Street!
Okay, so which stations are going to get an increase in services into and out of New Street as a result?
Good question, to which the honest answer is I don’t think it’s been decided yet. The growth is in towns to the north (where I live) so obvious candidates would be Lichfield/Sutton Coldfield, Cannock/Hednesford and Codsall (which is west rather than north). But that may change by 2027.
Again, we come back to capacity. It takes a lot longer to turn around a Pendolino than to turn around say a class 323 and they’re a lot longer than local trains as well. So taking seven platforms (probably six in full use) out of New Street might free up the equivalent of twelve platforms for local services.
New Street is also a massive bottleneck in the whole UK rail system, with so many lines going through the station. It’s not possible to expand it, as it’s surrounded on all sides, the new station half a mile away at Curzon St allows much easier access for the HS2 platforms and tracks.
Also, let’s not forget it’s a shithole. It must be the most horrible railway station of any major city in Europe. When I lived in Aber, I used to change at Wolverhampton to avoid getting off at New Street. (Helpfully that was where most services finished anyway due to delays at New Street.)
A new station close by will be much better. I’m not sure it’s even half a mile away.
Except the New Statesman figures include students amongst the figure for 'excluding retirees.'
As I showed last night IPSOS Mori had the Tories winning all classes amongst over 65s in 2019 and the Tories won ABs, C1s and C2s amongst 35-54s with Labour winning DEs amongst that age group.
Labour won all classes amongst 18 to 34s though so it is really only students and under 35s not yet on the property ladder Labour won, once workers neared 40 and got on the property ladder they voted Tory (with only those low paid workers or the unemployed still in social housing or renting over 40 in social class DE sticking with Labour).
Blair of course even managed to win retirees over 65 in 1997 41% to 36% for the Tories and in 2001 he only lost them by 1% to Hague and in 2005 by just 4% to Howard. Even Brown only lost them by 13% in 2010 and so it really is a particularly post Brexit phenomonon.
For example Boris beat Corbyn by a vast 47% margin amongst over 65s in 2019 compared to the 24% margin Cameron beat Ed Miliband by in 2015 amongst retirees
The comparison is quite useful in itself.
But I think it will help perpetuate this idea that over time, demographics favour Labour as older Tory voters die and younger Labour voters turn 18.
Of course if that had been the case, Labour would have had a majority from at the very latest 1992.
Generally the average voter votes Labour from when they get their first vote as they leave school and continue to vote Labour as they attend university, if they do and through their 20s when they are renting free and single and early 30s. By their mid 30s if they are married and have bought their first property they start to consider voting Tory and by the time they reach retirement age in their 60s they will likely own their own home outright and continue voting Tory at every general election until they die
Although your analysis is correct, these patterns are not inevitable.
There's an assumption on here that those who are retired vote out of narrow self-interest, and of course many do. But it's worth remembering that retired people usually have kids, maybe in their 30s/40s, and often grandchildren. It doesn't take that much for older people to be persuaded that what may be in their own narrow self-interest is actually not in the interest of their kids or grandkids, especially if they see their kids prospects being tarnished by specific policies. I make no claim to nobility, but when I come to vote, given that I am comfortable retired, I'm more interested in what the offer is to my offspring and to the public good than to me personally.
Yes and they may also help their children get on the property ladder by giving them some money for a deposit to buy their first property too, thus turning their children into Tories by their 40s
I hope this is not an automatic effect because I've just given my son some money to help him buy a house. I'd never have done this if it's going to turn him into a Tory.
Maybe not a Tory, but perhaps a Lib Dem? You know, the kind of people who find Conservatism uncool but couldn't possibly vote Labour under Corbyn because he would tax their houses of antisemitism...
That will also lead to a money reclaim. Boy can stand on his own two feet if he's going to misbehave like that.
Again, I'm having to recalibrate kinabalu's age, if he has a grown up son.
Anyway, the assumption that older people only vote Conservative out of self-interest needs challenging. I have become more Conservative - well, more anti-Labour - as I have aged because I have children, and because I have no confidence in Labour to deliver the sort of future I want for them. I have little confidence in the Conservatives, either, mind. But my primary political motivation is keeping the sorts of people who hang around with Jeremy Corbyn out of power. Doing so was important when I just had myself to worry about, but vital now I have children.
... I should point out that this is just my view. There are plenty of people on the left who I respect and I'm certainly not impugning their motives. My point is that people vote Conservative for reasons beyond themselves too.
An astonishing data security blunder saw the personal data of Special Forces soldiers circulating around WhatsApp in a leaked British Army spreadsheet.
The document ... contained details of all 1,182 British soldiers recently promoted from corporal to sergeant – including those in sensitive units such as the Special Air Service, Special Boat Service and the Special Reconnaissance Regiment. https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/02/uk_special_forces_data_breach_whatsapp/
Wouldn't have happened if the information had been held in a filing cabinet in a locked room.
If Portugal has to be removed from the Green List because of the idiotic holding of a football match between two English teams in Porto or wherever it was, it'll be one of the most stupid things that's happened recently regarding the pandemic.
Why don't we just move to vax passports for everywhere ?
If Portugal has to be removed from the Green List because of the idiotic holding of a football match between two English teams in Porto or wherever it was, it'll be one of the most stupid things that's happened recently regarding the pandemic.
Nah, plenty more idiotic decisions...but is was still absolutely stupid and how much extra covid will be being imported back with the hordes coming back?
The summer holiday airbridge system all last summer transported the Spanish variant all across Europe, Eastern Europe particular badly hit, but here too....totally unnecessary.
(The link is to a journalist/blogger who is a longstanding and outspoken supporter of HS2, so be aware he is incredibly critical of the Green stance on this - but you could probably deduce that from the link!)
Would the Greens rather we all used cars, rather than trains?
To be fair to the Greens, the case for HS2 is definitely not about getting people out of their cars.
That said, it has occurred to me that one argument for HS2 could be that car ownership is going to fall appreciably in the next 20 years.
But I'm not sure I'd want to make that argument if I were the government...
Why would car ownership fall ?
If there is any fundamental shift away from city living to wanting bigger homes with gardens or working from home then the opposite will happen.
I was thinking that ownership will fall if cars become prohibitively expensive.
But why would that happen ?
I suppose the government could tax them into being prohibitively expensive but do you think that would happen
Incidentally my son has been very active in school debating for a couple of years now and indeed has his house cup competition today. It is a very common motion that the voting of those over 75 should either be restricted or down weighted in some way so that the young are encouraged to take part and the policy mix is better focused in their direction.
Wheng I first heard of this idea I had some considerable difficultly in reconciling it with democracy but there is no doubt that our policy mix has been heavily influenced by the increasing number of the elderly and their propensity to vote. The triple lock is perhaps the most egregious example but there are many others. The motion tends to win amongst school kids!
Doing it on the basis of economic inactivity is clearly invidious and overlooks that many younger people are similarly inactive, as others have said.
The best argument in favour would be to weight votes by average remaining life expectancy, which would upweight the votes of the young on the grounds that they will suffer the consequences of today's policy decisions for much longer.
Yes the heart of the argument is that it tends to make government policy rather short termist and not put enough emphasis on things like global warming and environmental factors. I am not sure that is entirely accurate but it is what is contended.
It's a very old argument in a new guise. Once upon a time, the argument was that the lower classes should not be enfranchised (or alternatively, the franchise should be weighted in favour of the wealthy) because then they'd just vote for all sorts of free stuff.
Similar debate in the lead up to the US constitution. Though they preferred "better sort of people" to the term wealthy.
Start the Putney Debate Party - enfranchisement only for those with "a stake in the Publick Goode"
Headquarters at Putney Pies - just across the street from Putney Church.
On a serious note, the Roman "democracy" was actually an oligarchy massively weighted in favour of the rich. Quite specifically - no elections to the Senate, just a wealth qualification. Voting by tribes - think gerrymandering districts but on an epic scale. Oh, and moderate any ructions by a bit of slaughter of the lower classes.
Dont forget all the bribery
True.
Nothing as crude or ridiculous as the triple lock though.
The triple lock has not delivered huge gains.
Over 10 years it is about a tenner a week over CPI on the basic pension.
But it guaranteed protection to a generally wealthy group of voters from all the consequences of the GFC with the risk instead being borne by those in employment, many of whom found their wages falling year after year in real terms. They also found that other types of government spending more directed towards them were the subject of years of austerity measures.
Cameron's argument that this group was somehow not well placed to bear such risks was the exact opposite of the truth. But it was good politics.
Who are these pensioners not paying council tax? Asking because I want to make sure my parents aren't missing out on something.
Ultimately, the problem is that no democracy has ever gone down the road of only letting net tax payers vote. Should those employed in the public sector get a vote?
Even if such a method was decided upon, what is net?
I've been working over twenty years now and I'm not convinced I'm a net tax payer. Sure I pay VAT (well, sorta), PAYE (well, sorta), council tax, road tax etc but what do I get back out of the system? I don't claim any benefit at all, but I do make use of state owned roads, my bins get collected and the street is lit at night. What value would I place on these?
You aren't being raped or murdered by either invading armies or hordes of thugs. You are able to buy stuff in the shops without having to take a wheelbarrow full of fivers. You can say what you like about the state without being hauled off for random torture or murder by security police. You benefit from a nation that is (largely) healthy, educated and productive.
To name a few. You are very much a net tax payer - and the freedom to pretend that you are not is also what benefit you get from paying your taxes.
One reason I am very passionate about the NHS is just how much I have taken from it. A whole litany of interventions over my 48 years, two of which would have carried me away before my time, and several of the others would have been life changing. And the price to me? Other than prescriptions, nothing, nada - at the point of care. In no way will I ever pay enough tax to cover it. The flip side is that for many, they will pay more in tax to the NHS (indirectly) and never use it. But it is an amazing thing we have done.
Yes, people who go on about the NHS being a tiresome religious cult don't get the difference it makes when you really need it. I did once meet a lady who said she didn't see why she should pay tax for the NHS since she was perfectly well - the arguments seemed so obvious (Count your blessings, and are you sure you'll be well forever?). Does anyone with insurance complain that it's wasted because the house didn't burn down this year?
Obviously there's scope for different systems to deliver the same effect. But living in a country where you always have to be scared that you'll get a disease and not be able to afford to be treated must be very scary.
Am I misremembering or has Mr Baston written a piece or 2 for PB?
Yes, he has, and I suspect Lewis Baston's tongue was firmly in his cheek when he professed astonishment at the Spectator and Telegraph fibbing about Europe, given that Boris was editor of one and EU correspondent for the other.
There's something that analysers always seem to miss in such discussions. The postal vote. People with the postal vote are much more likely to vote because it's so easy. They can vote at their own convenience - often two weeks before polling day - and they don't have to remember to 'turn out'. And postal voters tend to be older...
An astonishing data security blunder saw the personal data of Special Forces soldiers circulating around WhatsApp in a leaked British Army spreadsheet.
The document ... contained details of all 1,182 British soldiers recently promoted from corporal to sergeant – including those in sensitive units such as the Special Air Service, Special Boat Service and the Special Reconnaissance Regiment. https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/02/uk_special_forces_data_breach_whatsapp/
Wouldn't have happened if the information had been held in a filing cabinet in a locked room.
New - 30 Conservative MPs have now signed an amendment to stop aid cuts, including former Prime Minister Theresa May and ex cabinet minister Damian Green, and others including Tim Loughton, Johnny Mercer, Nus Ghani and Bob Seeley https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1400391811449847816
I'm told they have the numbers - and the government will reverse this without it going to a vote.
Terrible. All these virtue signalling prats who want aid based on our own GDP and not based on what is best for others, what we can afford, or ensuring that the developed world together pays. Should be ashamed of themselves, but instead they're so full of their own moral superiority complex.
There's something that analysers always seem to miss in such discussions. The postal vote. People with the postal vote are much more likely to vote because it's so easy. They can vote at their own convenience - often two weeks before polling day - and they don't have to remember to 'turn out'. And postal voters tend to be older...
Do you have a problem with older people voting by postal vote?
New - 30 Conservative MPs have now signed an amendment to stop aid cuts, including former Prime Minister Theresa May and ex cabinet minister Damian Green, and others including Tim Loughton, Johnny Mercer, Nus Ghani and Bob Seeley https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1400391811449847816
I'm told they have the numbers - and the government will reverse this without it going to a vote.
Terrible. All these virtue signalling prats who want aid based on our own GDP and not based on what is best for others, what we can afford, or ensuring that the developed world together pays. Should be ashamed of themselves, but instead they're so full of their own moral superiority complex.
What does Dominic Cummings think? Remember he thought Boris foolish to oppose Rashford on school meals. Has HMG again tied itself to a politically damaging position with little if any upside?
Comments
.
#Nomoretellytax
Again, we come back to capacity. It takes a lot longer to turn around a Pendolino than to turn around say a class 323 and they’re a lot longer than local trains as well. So taking seven platforms (probably six in full use) out of New Street might free up the equivalent of twelve platforms for local services.
Labour had won 18 to 24s by 18% in October 1974 however and Kinnock won 18 to 24s by 2% in 1987.
In 1979 it was partly because the Tories looked more modern with a woman leader and by 1983 as they won a landslide.
Generally the Tories only win the youth vote in landslide years as they did in 1983 just as Labour only win the pensioner vote in landslide years as they did in 1997 when New Labour won over 65s by 5% over the Tories
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-october-1974
The 2007 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak occurred when the discharge of infectious effluent from a laboratory in Surrey led to foot-and-mouth disease infections at four nearby farms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_Kingdom_foot-and-mouth_outbreak
(The green bit that is, because they are dangerous. Not the LibDems, who I wish would do that).
The principle counts more than the party
But sod all use when you want something delivered from A to B tomorrow.
But I really wouldn't expect my spontaneous contributions to this site to be examined quite so rigorously.
The usual Planning Process is a local democratic process run by a local authority, involving consultation, planning gain contributions, and elected councillors making decisions. By the time it gets PP any development has been through solid environmental evaluations by professional Ecologists -- over months and sometimes years, and the outputs have been evaluated and negotiated etc, before evaluation by the Planning Officer then if necessary the Council.
One process is that ginger groups who have failed to stop a development try and undermine the decision by engaging a sleb.
2. maybe it shouldn't be quite so easy
3. theres no significant fraud in 99% of places
Even the run in / out to bookend the trip was an eyeopener. Rossendale is beautiful but how many people? I still love Lancashire, feel very at home in Manchester but am very very happy to live somewhere quiet with open countryside literally on my doorstep.
And if the built up sprawl around Greater Manchester is bad (and it IS bad) it is nothing compared to Greater Birmingham. So yes, I bet they were angry. I like the canal bits in the middle of Brum but you can keep the rest of it.
https://twitter.com/BBCDomC/status/1400388001512017923
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/07/31/the-referendums-of-1975-and-2016-illustrate-the-continuity-and-change-in-british-euroscepticism/
Crudely, people who experienced WW2 themselves were very pro-EEC. They were increasingly thin on the ground by 2016. The cohort below them (roughly, born in late 40s/50s, young voters in '75, retiring or retired now) were the core of the unsuccessful leave vote of 1975 and the successful one of 2016.
If so, apologies, I’d have hoped the perpetual avalanche of self regarding Covid nationalism on here and in the wider UKOK would have put me off that sort of thing for life.
In order for the young to become tories, they need to be more than just homeowners. They need to be homeowners with equity, gifted to them via ever rising prices.
A house price crash would seriously screw the tories, I recon.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1400391811449847816
Already Somerville is an infinitely more capable Education Secretary than John Swinney. She's started blame-shifting before there's any blame needing shifted.
https://stephendaisley.substack.com/p/sturgeon-sends-in-the-sas
On that sort of track record, if the elderly were voting faithfully for the Left you'd expect the Left to introduce a reform that ended up discouraging votes from the old.
Kenan Malik
Donor nations use crippling loans as weapons to promote their own interests"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/02/as-a-system-foreign-aid-is-a-fraud-and-does-nothing-for-inequality
Although, of course I accept that's a wildly crude over generalisation. I could think of a wide variety of other reasons why the cohort you describe could be negative towards the idea of Europe, and earlier and subsequent generations more supportive.
I can't help feeling that you have already decided.
Agree with you about Bristol, trains round there are a complete joke. Apparently there are constant sounds of something spinning in Brunel’s grave and I’m sure the two are connected.
An hour after tea today is when I’d expect Williamson to declare if they’re still batting.
Is your local Tory MP is on the list yet? Check here: (more will be added in coming days...)
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1400397355208392708?s=20
Well, it might help...
Over 10 years it is about a tenner a week over CPI on the basic pension.
We've had that godawful Daily Mail expose that "proved" it was "physically impossible" to be natural due to four charged components in a row. Which was plain wrong, to the point where whoever wrote it was either fundamentally ignorant of the subject or deliberately trying to mislead (it took moments for those who did know anything about the subject to point to several thousand such occurrences in the human genome alone.
We've had people breathlessly telling us about "gain of function" because scientists study change of host range, change of transmissibility, and change in antigenicity. But as a category, it sounds like "make viruses worse!" and SARS-CoV-2's lengthy presymptomatic period and duration of infectiveness and viral load (the things that make it bad for us) aren't usually studied in that section. Those who aren't expert in the subject can wrap them all up together and assume that "gain of function research going on here" means "anything that makes viruses bad, must be biological warfare."
Being able to switch on and off functions like that would take a level of knowledge way beyond anything we've ever seen. Not impossible, but has been pointed out, we'd see other capabilities go hand-in-glove with that - such as a skillset with mRNA that would make the mRNA vaccines we've since developed in the West look like sixth-form projects against whatever China would have been able to roll out at far shorter timescales and more effectively (and gain the plaudits for saving the world). Not only haven't they done so, there are no hints that they have the technology to do so.
(1/2)
And, in all fairness to Labour, I do not remember that Corbyn said he was going to tax people's houses. The furthest he got was to undertake to "think about" site value taxation.
This is a long-established Liberal policy, and a very good one too. It could have been this half-promise that caused so many peple to vote Labour in 2017.
So go ahead, Mr Kinabalu. It will be a very good thing if you son turns into a Lib Dem. What constituency is he thinking of buying a house in? Chesham and Amersham could be an interesting place to live.
It does make one take these earnest and breathless links with an entire chip-shop-worth of salt. Which can be a shame if there's something in it.
Personally, I could easily accept "they were studying bat coronaviruses because they were worried about another SARS or MERS and had an accident." It would need genuine evidence to back it up (a God of the Gaps argument that we can't trace it all the way back to Bartok the Bat in Cave 16 in Yunnan province and what he did doesn't cut the mustard, because it's far more common to be unable to trace a zoonotic jump all the way back than otherwise. But this doesn't mean that there was a secret virus lab in the 1800s run by a Victorian Dr Moreau that designed the most recent of the four cold coronaviruses, either).
However, this always gets swept into a "they were designing it and it was a mad scientist experiment run amuck!" theme as well, which runs into multiple implausibilities that have been highlighted.
It's an Achilles heel of storylovers - to push the more dramatic ones too far.
(2/2)
So unless England bat like complete idiots, it would be better to budget for a hard couple of days, bat two sessions and then bowl last on a worn pitch.
And also - although it slightly contradicts my point above - remember Williamson is quite attacking. He likes to get on with a match. Get them in tonight and have two goes with the new ball, will likely be his thinking.
So I stand by my prediction. Declaration an hour after tea, unless there’s a dramatic collapse.
What is known pretty well for certain, from genetic analysis of the virus from those infected (and subsequent diverse mutations), is that these were some of the earliest cases.
That doesn't, of course, mean that they were the very first case(s).
But there is essentially zero direct evidence that it came from the particular cave everyone is on about.
When the stadiums are full again next seasons, I think there is going to be a big bust up.
Could very well be the lab. If so, we need to know, work out what went wrong and fix it.
But if it's not the lab and we just blame the lab anyway, then we miss the opportunity to identify the real vector and maybe prevent that from happening again.
*You'll all be glad to know I don't do anything with radioactive isotopes any more!
Anyway, the assumption that older people only vote Conservative out of self-interest needs challenging. I have become more Conservative - well, more anti-Labour - as I have aged because I have children, and because I have no confidence in Labour to deliver the sort of future I want for them. I have little confidence in the Conservatives, either, mind. But my primary political motivation is keeping the sorts of people who hang around with Jeremy Corbyn out of power. Doing so was important when I just had myself to worry about, but vital now I have children.
The document ... contained details of all 1,182 British soldiers recently promoted from corporal to sergeant – including those in sensitive units such as the Special Air Service, Special Boat Service and the Special Reconnaissance Regiment.
https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/02/uk_special_forces_data_breach_whatsapp/
A new station close by will be much better. I’m not sure it’s even half a mile away.
I should point out that this is just my view. There are plenty of people on the left who I respect and I'm certainly not impugning their motives. My point is that people vote Conservative for reasons beyond themselves too.
The summer holiday airbridge system all last summer transported the Spanish variant all across Europe, Eastern Europe particular badly hit, but here too....totally unnecessary.
Cameron's argument that this group was somehow not well placed to bear such risks was the exact opposite of the truth. But it was good politics.
Obviously there's scope for different systems to deliver the same effect. But living in a country where you always have to be scared that you'll get a disease and not be able to afford to be treated must be very scary.