A year on for Starmer and he has yet been able to shake the hands of a single voter – politicalbetti

https://twitter.com/Conflicts/status/1377937687739523073

Gallowgate said:

Malmesbury said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

LostPassword said:

Philip_Thompson said:

LostPassword said:

felix said:

Labour's real problem remains it's focus on identity politics

No, Labour's problem is that the Tories have played identity politics better, by winning support from voters who identify as English and patriotic, and creating a sense of distrust of Labour's patriotic credentials. Johnson is all identity politics all the time - but he has a larger identity group supporting him.

The vaccine success is also significant, as others have pointed out. I'm struggling to think of when a British government last did something as well. It's often said that the electorate doesn't do gratitude, but I wonder whether this might be an exception because the success is so unusually clear.

If so many Labour supporters didn't hate their own country so much then they wouldn't be abandoning being English and patriotic to the Tories.

In any other nation being of your own nation and patriotic is not newsworthy. In America it is "motherhood and apple pie" behaviour. Only the English left find the concept of actually liking your own country to be repellant.

I don't think Labour supporters do hate their own country at all, but that argument is for another day.

What is important is that the Tories have convinced the voters that they do. Labour's problem isn't so much that they've played identity politics, but that they've played identity politics badly, and the Tories have played identity politics with much more success.

When the very presence of a flag sends some into an apoplectic rage, it doesn't take much to convince voters that those reacting with fury hate their own country.

It's not even a new concept invented by the Tories, that notorious Tory errr George Orwell wrote about this over fifty years ago.

"The left" should turn the Union Jack into a "woke" symbol for the primary reason that it would wind "the right" up something awful. Would be great craic.

.. and that sentence encapsulates the problem nicely.

I recall a Yasmin Alibhai-Brown column in the Guardian. The context was, during the Rugby World Cup, a black cab driver (who was black) had defied TfL and flown a England flag on his cab. With the avowed intention of cleaning it back from the EDL types. Which it did - to certain extent.

Anyway, YAB wrote an anguished article which included her stating that this left her with the horrifying prospect of having to *like* this country. Or, at the least, give up on the idea that liking this country was immoral. Which, she said, would making living in this country virtually impossible for her....

I mean in all seriousness people like YAB don't represent Labour or Labour voters. I don't even know who she is.

Most moderate Labour voters in my experience are fairly comfortable being "British" but don't feel the need to virtue signal by waving flags around all the time (oh the irony). That doesn't mean they "hate" this country.

As the "right" likes to say: Twitter isn't Britain, but Twitter also isn't "the left".

Yes - the problem is that YAB doesn't represent a lot of Labour voters or potential Labour voters. But she represents alot of people (small group compared to the actual voting public) who think they own the Labour brand.

It's a fairly instinctive thing - if you don't like the country in general, people won't vote for you to run it.

Want to change stuff - fine.

Hate the whole thing - here's nice job at the Guardian, sorry we won't give you the keys to No. 10....

Gallowgate said:

In fact in my extended friendship group, nobody reads the Guardian, even the most ardent Corbynistas. I'm not sure who does to be honest.

The number of under 40s willing and able to pay £1.80 (£2.70 on a Saturday!) for a newspaper must be tiny.

I'm a bit older so grew up enjoying newspapers, and balk at the prices that seem to increase each time I find myself considering buying one before thinking, I'll just go to the website.

noneoftheabove said:

Gallowgate said:

In fact in my extended friendship group, nobody reads the Guardian, even the most ardent Corbynistas. I'm not sure who does to be honest.

The number of under 40s willing and able to pay £1.80 (£2.70 on a Saturday!) for a newspaper must be tiny.

I'm a bit older so grew up enjoying newspapers, and balk at the prices that seem to increase each time I find myself considering buying one before thinking, I'll just go to the website.

I didn't even consider printed newspapers in my comment, I meant the website!

'Take Back Control' is sounding pretty f*cking hollow this week, as Johnson's techno-authoritarian government pushes on with national tracking app.

Gallowgate said:

Malmesbury said:

Gallowgate said:

Philip_Thompson said:

LostPassword said:

Philip_Thompson said:

LostPassword said:

felix said:

Labour's real problem remains it's focus on identity politics

No, Labour's problem is that the Tories have played identity politics better, by winning support from voters who identify as English and patriotic, and creating a sense of distrust of Labour's patriotic credentials. Johnson is all identity politics all the time - but he has a larger identity group supporting him.

The vaccine success is also significant, as others have pointed out. I'm struggling to think of when a British government last did something as well. It's often said that the electorate doesn't do gratitude, but I wonder whether this might be an exception because the success is so unusually clear.

If so many Labour supporters didn't hate their own country so much then they wouldn't be abandoning being English and patriotic to the Tories.

In any other nation being of your own nation and patriotic is not newsworthy. In America it is "motherhood and apple pie" behaviour. Only the English left find the concept of actually liking your own country to be repellant.

I don't think Labour supporters do hate their own country at all, but that argument is for another day.

What is important is that the Tories have convinced the voters that they do. Labour's problem isn't so much that they've played identity politics, but that they've played identity politics badly, and the Tories have played identity politics with much more success.

When the very presence of a flag sends some into an apoplectic rage, it doesn't take much to convince voters that those reacting with fury hate their own country.

It's not even a new concept invented by the Tories, that notorious Tory errr George Orwell wrote about this over fifty years ago.

"The left" should turn the Union Jack into a "woke" symbol for the primary reason that it would wind "the right" up something awful. Would be great craic.

.. and that sentence encapsulates the problem nicely.

I recall a Yasmin Alibhai-Brown column in the Guardian. The context was, during the Rugby World Cup, a black cab driver (who was black) had defied TfL and flown a England flag on his cab. With the avowed intention of cleaning it back from the EDL types. Which it did - to certain extent.

Anyway, YAB wrote an anguished article which included her stating that this left her with the horrifying prospect of having to *like* this country. Or, at the least, give up on the idea that liking this country was immoral. Which, she said, would making living in this country virtually impossible for her....

I mean in all seriousness people like YAB don't represent Labour or Labour voters. I don't even know who she is.

Most moderate Labour voters in my experience are fairly comfortable being "British" but don't feel the need to virtue signal by waving flags around all the time (oh the irony). That doesn't mean they "hate" this country.

As the "right" likes to say: Twitter isn't Britain, but Twitter also isn't "the left".

The problem is that huge numbers of 'moderate Labour voters are comfortable' voting Tory. They may not fly flags, most people don't, but they still have views about it. Even Channel 4 News of all places couldn't avoid seeing this is a recent visit to Redcar.

"Do people realise how high price they will be paying?"

https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1377903658063564802

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.

noneoftheabove said:

Gallowgate said:

In fact in my extended friendship group, nobody reads the Guardian, even the most ardent Corbynistas. I'm not sure who does to be honest.

The number of under 40s willing and able to pay £1.80 (£2.70 on a Saturday!) for a newspaper must be tiny.

I'm a bit older so grew up enjoying newspapers, and balk at the prices that seem to increase each time I find myself considering buying one before thinking, I'll just go to the website.

Mail on line is £9.99 a month and it is exactly as the hard copy

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

London is a world city now, competing with New York city and Paris and LA for highly skilled, wealthy individuals and families to buy property there.

Hence most Londoner can no longer afford to buy in London and rent, much as they do in New York city, I doubt that will change anytime soon and as 2019 showed the Tories can even win a landslide majority UK wide despite losing London.

The Tories need to focus on ensuring those in the rest of the country can still afford to buy

Gallowgate said:

<

I mean in all seriousness people like YAB don't represent Labour or Labour voters. I don't even know who she is.

Most moderate Labour voters in my experience are fairly comfortable being "British" but don't feel the need to virtue signal by waving flags around all the time (oh the irony). That doesn't mean they "hate" this country.

As the "right" likes to say: Twitter isn't Britain, but Twitter also isn't "the left".

That's right. I think that people who worry/fear/dislike "the other side" in politics go out of their way to find someone to be outraged about, and of course the media on both sides do it too.

I understand that a local Tory councillor used an offensive word (woodpile context) the other day He's an amiable old buffer normally and clearly he just lapsed into an old phrase that most of us would never use. Have I denounced him to the Guardian? Tweeted furiously about him? Demanded that Boris Johnson takes a view? Nah - it's wrong but one local councillor saying something yucky isn't really a big deal. In the same way, I decline to be defensive if some Labour councillor somewhere says something out of line.

By and large, this stuff is rare and not worth obsessing about - the important issue is when prejudice becomes part of everyday experience, which is why the recent report denying systematic racism is so unhelpful.

LostPassword said:

AnneJGP said:

DavidL said:

AnneJGP said:

DavidL said:

rottenborough said:

Anecdata: just out of curiosity I thought I would check my local mass vaccine centre availability. You can walk in in an hour's time and have the jab if over 50 or otherwise eligible.

I have received an email reply from the Scottish vaccination service. They have never heard of me. Not on their system apparently. This is a little surprising since I have been at my current address for more than 30 years, with the same GP practice for 45 years and they have heard of my wife.

My details have been passed to the local NHS Board, apparently, who may contact me in a week failing which I have a telephone number I can call. What I would give for a system like you have locally. This is pathetic.

People can drop through the cracks. Many years ago, as a young woman, I applied for some post that required my GP to provide a medical certificate. I'd been in that place for some years and had had no problems accessing GP services when needed (they even did home visits in those days).

Yet when I asked for this certificate, they found that I wasn't registered with them, even though I'd arranged for transfer of records from the former place within a few weeks of moving.

Good morning, everyone.

Sure, I get that, bureaucracies are imperfect things. Which is why systems should allow those using them to take the initiative to get things done. If I had been able to make an appointment online myself I would have been vaccinated weeks ago. But in Scotland the bureaucracy always knows best. So I can't.

Yes, that's true, there should always be a failsafe way to fall back on. Any idea why the Scottish government didn't set up a parallel facility to England's? After all, it's the bureaucracy that's handling the alternative book your own system.

Two explanations come to mind.

Incompetence, in that they did not realise that the data could be bad (see also the debacle over percentage of care home residents vaccinated).

Malfeasance, in that there was a political instruction to associate vaccinations strongly with the Scottish Government by sending appointments in blue envelopes.

It should also be noted that whenever id cards and databases are mooted that politicians exempt themselves from being on them for common consumption and I suspect senior civil servants also get an exemption. If its not good enough for them then its not good enough for us.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

AnneJGP said:

DavidL said:

rottenborough said:

Anecdata: just out of curiosity I thought I would check my local mass vaccine centre availability. You can walk in in an hour's time and have the jab if over 50 or otherwise eligible.

I have received an email reply from the Scottish vaccination service. They have never heard of me. Not on their system apparently. This is a little surprising since I have been at my current address for more than 30 years, with the same GP practice for 45 years and they have heard of my wife.

My details have been passed to the local NHS Board, apparently, who may contact me in a week failing which I have a telephone number I can call. What I would give for a system like you have locally. This is pathetic.

People can drop through the cracks. Many years ago, as a young woman, I applied for some post that required my GP to provide a medical certificate. I'd been in that place for some years and had had no problems accessing GP services when needed (they even did home visits in those days).

Yet when I asked for this certificate, they found that I wasn't registered with them, even though I'd arranged for transfer of records from the former place within a few weeks of moving.

Good morning, everyone.

Believe it or not my wife had the same experience even though we have been with the same practice since 1965

Mind you we have had both our Pfizer vaccinations

I was called for a smear test by my surgery Around 12 years ago. Bit odd, as I’m definitely not in possession of a cervix. I was tempted to turn up just to see what happened, but then thought they might have tried anyway, so did the right thing and called to get my records changed... turned out there had been a wrong box ticked by someone!

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Guardian is shite, Mail is shite, Independent is shite, in fact our media in general is shite.

The Times is probably the one that has the most interesting political stuff, in my view anyway.

I've never bought a newspaper in my life - and I never will.

I'm not sure your last sentence follows from the previous two.

Gallowgate said:

I mean in all seriousness people like YAB don't represent Labour or Labour voters. I don't even know who she is.

Most moderate Labour voters in my experience are fairly comfortable being "British" but don't feel the need to virtue signal by waving flags around all the time (oh the irony). That doesn't mean they "hate" this country.

As the "right" likes to say: Twitter isn't Britain, but Twitter also isn't "the left".

Trouble is, the media get YAB on 24-hour media because they are guaranteed to get strongly held views. Yet they are antithetical to what the Tory --> Labour swing voters want to hear. And she bed-blocks the airtime that Labour need to acquire to win over those voters. But the 24-hour media will complain "Labour doesn't have anything to say." Which is a fair critique of Starmer. He may not be as bat-shit crazy as YAB, but at least she has passion in her craziness.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

RobD said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

RobD said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Guardian is shite, Mail is shite, Independent is shite, in fact our media in general is shite.

The Times is probably the one that has the most interesting political stuff, in my view anyway.

I've never bought a newspaper in my life - and I never will.

You've undoubtedly read their content though.

Never paid for it, it's my silent form of protest.

You should. As you noted, the Times is pretty good. If you don't have a subscription you can only read a couple articles per month.

I'm not going to reveal how but I read a lot more than a couple of articles a month. Silent form of protest, I won't pay.

I don't understand. What has the Times done to deserve you reading their output for free? They aren't a public service.

Sean_F said:

rottenborough said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.

I think it's a big part of it. People on high incomes who can only afford to rent, due to high house prices, are less likely to vote Conservative than people on average incomes who can afford to buy their own home.

I've seen this in the constituency I work in. Enfield North has seen home ownership decline from c.70% in 2000, to around 50% now. Conservative support has dropped sharply in the wards where this has been most pronounced, like Enfield Lock, Turkey Street, Southbury. The constituency as a whole has gone from a historic marginal to now very safely Labour.

London probably doesn't matter much to the Conservatives now, but it's not a trend they would wish to see replicated across the country.

Yes, an average salary in London will not get you anywhere near enough to buy a property there, an average salary in the North and Midlands however will normally get you a very nice family home in those regions.

Hence London is moving ever more Labour and the North and Midlands have moved Tory

CorrectHorseBattery said:

RobD said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

RobD said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

RobD said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Guardian is shite, Mail is shite, Independent is shite, in fact our media in general is shite.

The Times is probably the one that has the most interesting political stuff, in my view anyway.

I've never bought a newspaper in my life - and I never will.

You've undoubtedly read their content though.

Never paid for it, it's my silent form of protest.

You should. As you noted, the Times is pretty good. If you don't have a subscription you can only read a couple articles per month.

I'm not going to reveal how but I read a lot more than a couple of articles a month. Silent form of protest, I won't pay.

I don't understand. What has the Times done to deserve you reading their output for free? They aren't a public service.

As I said, the media in general is shite and I don't pay for it on principle. The Times being owned by Murdoch is one reason I won't pay.

However they have some interesting political stuff, so I read it - I just don't pay.

It's shit, but I read it all the time. If everyone took your attitude there would be no newspaper left.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

rottenborough said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.

There's definitely an element of it, it's not the whole story but it certainly motivates me to vote anti-Tory in any election that comes up.

The problem Labour have is that the sort of people that vote with their feet also tend to vote Tory.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

rottenborough said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.

I think it's a big part of it. People on high incomes who can only afford to rent, due to high house prices, are less likely to vote Conservative than people on average incomes who can afford to buy their own home.

I've seen this in the constituency I work in. Enfield North has seen home ownership decline from c.70% in 2000, to around 50% now. Conservative support has dropped sharply in the wards where this has been most pronounced, like Enfield Lock, Turkey Street, Southbury. The constituency as a whole has gone from a historic marginal to now very safely Labour.

London probably doesn't matter much to the Conservatives now, but it's not a trend they would wish to see replicated across the country.

Yes, an average salary in London will not get you anywhere near enough to buy a property there, an average salary in the North and Midlands however will normally get you a very nice family home in those regions.

Hence London is moving ever more Labour and the North and Midlands have moved Tory

If house prices keep jacking up, in a few decades the rest of the country is going to have the same problem, or the market crashes. Wouldn't want to be holding that bomb.

We will see, hopefully the tighter controls on immigration now and building more affordable housing via local plans should help, especially in the South where it is most needed.

At the moment there is a huge house price divide in England, in the North East the average house price is just £174,116 compared to an average house price of £670,601 in London.

In the West Midlands the average house price is just £245,048 compared to an average house price of £438,998 in the South East

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-England.html

kinabalu said:

Nemtynakht said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

kinabalu said:

Yes, this is why it's ludicrous to be writing off Starmer due to current mediocre ratings. There has been nothing but Covid since he got the job. No space for the opposition to attack and carve out a strong and distinctive identity. Just no appetite for it amongst the public (as opposed to winky wonky geeks like us).

Keir: "Today, I set out why this government is the worst in modern times. A bunch of total charlatans, led by a prize example of the breed, who might have lucked out on vaccines, as even the blind squirrel will eventually stumble on a nut, but other than that are an utter disaster, and what's worse do not give a flying fig so long as they can keep on shoving the moolah in the direction of their fatcat mates".

Public: "Oh shut up for fuck's sake you irritating little man. We want to hear from Boris about the roadmap."

This has been the political landscape and dynamic of the pandemic. Starmer knows this and has cut his cloth accordingly. He's ridden it out with the objective of 'do no damage' and he has succeeded. He is ready to roll now, as normal life resumes and normal politics resumes. It's game on.

That would all make sense if he hadn’t led the polls for a while, and those leads been feted as an example of his great leadership by his fans. You can’t take the bouquets and swerve the brickbats. Now, as more don’t knows make their minds up, he is disliked, not trusted and thought of as weak

We don't know, is my point. Very exceptional circumstances. If the polls are still looking bad this time next year I will start to worry. But right now I'm quite relaxed. Not exactly optimistic but neither the opposite.

Hartlepool will be interesting. If Labour can pull off a surprise win there I will start to feel positively bullish.

It will hardly be a surprise. 50/50 in a seat they hold. Are you writing the lines for labour media rounds on the night? If so can I suggest the following

- the Tories really should be doing better in London
- Labour have really held on through difficult times in Liverpool
- Labour haven't exploded in Scotland, our message is beginning to cut through

The Tory lines will inevitably include those around losing seats in the middle of a parliament, unprecedented and unpredictable times, and didn't we do well on vaccines

It will be a genuine surprise and a boost if Labour can win a WWC Leave stronghold like Hartlepool so soon after a triumphant Brexit cum vaccines and with no BXP in play.

People can laugh all they like but this is a new politics for which we need a new punditry. I'm happy to be the one forging it.

I think while there's a certain amount of narrative control on both sides but rationally the following points are simultaneously true:

- It would be disappointing for Labour not win a seat in their historic heartlands, during midterm as the opposition.
- It would be a good result for Labour to win the seat due to its demographics and the results of the GE 2019 election regarding BREXIT/CON vote splitting.
- The Tories are on the ascendancy on Teesside and have been for a while, both in terms of local councils, the mayorship, and investment in the area. They should really be expecting to win. This is reflected by the reported attitude of their MPs.
- The Tories shouldn't be disappointed if they don't win as it doesn't affect their electoral strategy for the next GE.

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

rottenborough said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.

I think it's a big part of it. People on high incomes who can only afford to rent, due to high house prices, are less likely to vote Conservative than people on average incomes who can afford to buy their own home.

I've seen this in the constituency I work in. Enfield North has seen home ownership decline from c.70% in 2000, to around 50% now. Conservative support has dropped sharply in the wards where this has been most pronounced, like Enfield Lock, Turkey Street, Southbury. The constituency as a whole has gone from a historic marginal to now very safely Labour.

London probably doesn't matter much to the Conservatives now, but it's not a trend they would wish to see replicated across the country.

Yes, an average salary in London will not get you anywhere near enough to buy a property there, an average salary in the North and Midlands however will normally get you a very nice family home in those regions.

Hence London is moving ever more Labour and the North and Midlands have moved Tory

There are other factors, such as ethnicity, and Brexit. But, some ethnic minorities in London (eg Indians, Jews) have shifted towards the Conservatives (eg Harrow East, Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green), and 40% of Londoners supported Brexit. I think housing is the biggest issue working against the Conservatives in London.

Housing and Brexit will be the two biggest issues in London. Not that Labour have the answers on housing either, both parties are scared of a free market not propped up by govt subsidies and market distortions. Labour also don't have the answer on Brexit but at least didn't cause the problem.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

rottenborough said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.

I think it's a big part of it. People on high incomes who can only afford to rent, due to high house prices, are less likely to vote Conservative than people on average incomes who can afford to buy their own home.

I've seen this in the constituency I work in. Enfield North has seen home ownership decline from c.70% in 2000, to around 50% now. Conservative support has dropped sharply in the wards where this has been most pronounced, like Enfield Lock, Turkey Street, Southbury. The constituency as a whole has gone from a historic marginal to now very safely Labour.

London probably doesn't matter much to the Conservatives now, but it's not a trend they would wish to see replicated across the country.

Yes, an average salary in London will not get you anywhere near enough to buy a property there, an average salary in the North and Midlands however will normally get you a very nice family home in those regions.

Hence London is moving ever more Labour and the North and Midlands have moved Tory

There are other factors, such as ethnicity, and Brexit. But, some ethnic minorities in London (eg Indians, Jews) have shifted towards the Conservatives (eg Harrow East, Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green), and 40% of Londoners supported Brexit. I think housing is the biggest issue working against the Conservatives in London.

Average age? A lot of younger people migrate to London because it's awesome.

That too. Large numbers of students and university workers would provide a pool of Labour and Green Party voters.

TimT said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

rottenborough said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.

I think it's a big part of it. People on high incomes who can only afford to rent, due to high house prices, are less likely to vote Conservative than people on average incomes who can afford to buy their own home.

I've seen this in the constituency I work in. Enfield North has seen home ownership decline from c.70% in 2000, to around 50% now. Conservative support has dropped sharply in the wards where this has been most pronounced, like Enfield Lock, Turkey Street, Southbury. The constituency as a whole has gone from a historic marginal to now very safely Labour.

London probably doesn't matter much to the Conservatives now, but it's not a trend they would wish to see replicated across the country.

Yes, an average salary in London will not get you anywhere near enough to buy a property there, an average salary in the North and Midlands however will normally get you a very nice family home in those regions.

Hence London is moving ever more Labour and the North and Midlands have moved Tory

There are other factors, such as ethnicity, and Brexit. But, some ethnic minorities in London (eg Indians, Jews) have shifted towards the Conservatives (eg Harrow East, Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green), and 40% of Londoners supported Brexit. I think housing is the biggest issue working against the Conservatives in London.

Average age? A lot of younger people migrate to London because it's awesome.

Yeah, and once they start having families, they migrate out, because it isn't.

You beat me to it. London is a place for day visits and then retreat quickly. Just about the only place worth living in London is St John's Wood, for obvious reasons.

noneoftheabove said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

rottenborough said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.

I think it's a big part of it. People on high incomes who can only afford to rent, due to high house prices, are less likely to vote Conservative than people on average incomes who can afford to buy their own home.

I've seen this in the constituency I work in. Enfield North has seen home ownership decline from c.70% in 2000, to around 50% now. Conservative support has dropped sharply in the wards where this has been most pronounced, like Enfield Lock, Turkey Street, Southbury. The constituency as a whole has gone from a historic marginal to now very safely Labour.

London probably doesn't matter much to the Conservatives now, but it's not a trend they would wish to see replicated across the country.

Yes, an average salary in London will not get you anywhere near enough to buy a property there, an average salary in the North and Midlands however will normally get you a very nice family home in those regions.

Hence London is moving ever more Labour and the North and Midlands have moved Tory

There are other factors, such as ethnicity, and Brexit. But, some ethnic minorities in London (eg Indians, Jews) have shifted towards the Conservatives (eg Harrow East, Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green), and 40% of Londoners supported Brexit. I think housing is the biggest issue working against the Conservatives in London.

Housing and Brexit will be the two biggest issues in London. Not that Labour have the answers on housing either, both parties are scared of a free market not propped up by govt subsidies and market distortions. Labour also don't have the answer on Brexit but at least didn't cause the problem.

Since 2010, housing has tended to become more affordable, relative to income, in most parts, but certainly not in London. From the twenties to the eighties, housing was an issue that both main parties took a huge interest in, but then they lost interest for some reason.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Northern_Al said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Guardian is shite, Mail is shite, Independent is shite, in fact our media in general is shite.

The Times is probably the one that has the most interesting political stuff, in my view anyway.

I've never bought a newspaper in my life - and I never will.

I'm not sure your last sentence follows from the previous two.

The Times is shite, it is however the least shite, if that makes sense.

I don't pay for any of the content I read, I am not going to reveal how I don't pay - but I don't.

The get all the papers at Labour HQ?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Lucy Powell on Sky endorsing vaccine passports for attendance at large scale events

In the real world Lucy, where we live, unlike where you live, they’re a very bad idea.

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Lucy Powell on Sky endorsing vaccine passports for attendance at large scale events

In the real world Lucy, where we live, unlike where you live, they’re a very bad idea.

Why?

CorrectHorseBattery said:

tlg86 said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

rottenborough said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.

There's definitely an element of it, it's not the whole story but it certainly motivates me to vote anti-Tory in any election that comes up.

The problem Labour have is that the sort of people that vote with their feet also tend to vote Tory.

100% spot on.

As I said before, vaccine passports should be what motivates anyone under the age of 40 to vote next time. But my peers will just sit at home as they always do. It is so frustrating seeing it election after election.

Sorry, what I meant was people who move to where they can afford to buy tend to vote Tory. Obviously, that becomes problematic for the Tories if you can’t afford to buy in a lot of the country.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

If you're in your 20s and 30s, I genuinely think there is nothing like London in the UK. Beyond that, yeah I will leave

Not all 20 and 30 year olds are the same...I moved where I am when 21 and worked in a job with a lot of 20 to 30 year olds....about 25 in the lab I worked in. Despite being only a 20 minute train ride into London most I worked with didn't visit and more couldn't stand the place than liked it. This was 87 so maybe its changed. Are you sure you are not just assuming all 20 to 30 year olds feel about it like you do?

Northern_Al said:

noneoftheabove said:

Northern_Al said:

noneoftheabove said:

Gallowgate said:

In fact in my extended friendship group, nobody reads the Guardian, even the most ardent Corbynistas. I'm not sure who does to be honest.

The number of under 40s willing and able to pay £1.80 (£2.70 on a Saturday!) for a newspaper must be tiny.

I'm a bit older so grew up enjoying newspapers, and balk at the prices that seem to increase each time I find myself considering buying one before thinking, I'll just go to the website.

Sadly, you're out of date: The Guardian in print (without a subscription) is £2.20 and £3.20 on a Saturday. I buy it every day as I still like spreading a newspaper out on the table while I have lunch.

Just goes to show I must be old, woke, and broke.

So about £750 per year or £1k of pre taxed income? Someone starting out in life could retire 2-3 years earlier if they invested that in a pension instead. Do you like it that much?

That's a weird argument; you could apply that to anything. A coffee each day from Starbucks would be the same; a pint of beer a day would be more. I spend a lot less on buying a daily paper than others do on coffee. I buy cheap cars, saving me '000s each year. Regardless, my £2.20 per day on a paper pales into insignificance when compared with my other half's spending on vintage clothes. Everybody needs their little luxury. Mine is a daily Guardian. Hardly extravagant.

An excellent habit imo and one I'm at risk of losing - the ability to settle into a non screen read.

Not good. Contemplating a digital detox. Get back to basics.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

If you're in your 20s and 30s, I genuinely think there is nothing like London in the UK. Beyond that, yeah I will leave

Never lived there but visited as often as possible in my 20s. The Tube is my favourite thing about London.

Sean_F said:

noneoftheabove said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

rottenborough said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1377947167260729347

So, why don't we stop implementing policies that jack house prices up?

No? Okay then, just watch London go further and further to Labour

Are people in London voting Labour because they can't afford to buy a house?

I suspect there is a lot more to it than that.

I think it's a big part of it. People on high incomes who can only afford to rent, due to high house prices, are less likely to vote Conservative than people on average incomes who can afford to buy their own home.

I've seen this in the constituency I work in. Enfield North has seen home ownership decline from c.70% in 2000, to around 50% now. Conservative support has dropped sharply in the wards where this has been most pronounced, like Enfield Lock, Turkey Street, Southbury. The constituency as a whole has gone from a historic marginal to now very safely Labour.

London probably doesn't matter much to the Conservatives now, but it's not a trend they would wish to see replicated across the country.

Yes, an average salary in London will not get you anywhere near enough to buy a property there, an average salary in the North and Midlands however will normally get you a very nice family home in those regions.

Hence London is moving ever more Labour and the North and Midlands have moved Tory

There are other factors, such as ethnicity, and Brexit. But, some ethnic minorities in London (eg Indians, Jews) have shifted towards the Conservatives (eg Harrow East, Hendon, Finchley & Golders Green), and 40% of Londoners supported Brexit. I think housing is the biggest issue working against the Conservatives in London.

Housing and Brexit will be the two biggest issues in London. Not that Labour have the answers on housing either, both parties are scared of a free market not propped up by govt subsidies and market distortions. Labour also don't have the answer on Brexit but at least didn't cause the problem.

Since 2010, housing has tended to become more affordable, relative to income, in most parts, but certainly not in London. From the twenties to the eighties, housing was an issue that both main parties took a huge interest in, but then they lost interest for some reason.

The reason is that the solutions rely on reducing the asset value of the age cohorts who vote most.

rottenborough said:

"after telling this newspaper yesterday that vaccine passports were against “the British instinct”, [Starmer's] aides then rushed to explain that this didn’t mean he actually opposes them."

Telegraph.

Starmer in a nutshell it seems.

@Richard_Nabavi did predict this lol

squareroot2 said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Lucy Powell on Sky endorsing vaccine passports for attendance at large scale events

In the real world Lucy, where we live, unlike where you live, they’re a very bad idea.

Why?

First of all, because if they’re on a phone that raises civil liberties issues and if they’re on paper knowing our government they’ll be easy to forge.

But more pertinently because the majority of people who will want to attend large scale events are too young to be vaccinated (including the staff) and by the time they have been vaccinated a passport will be unnecessary.

MaxPB said:

rottenborough said:

"after telling this newspaper yesterday that vaccine passports were against “the British instinct”, [Starmer's] aides then rushed to explain that this didn’t mean he actually opposes them."

Telegraph.

Starmer in a nutshell it seems.

@Richard_Nabavi did predict this lol

As I have said if the tories introduce them I will absolutely vote against them at the next election and out of curiousity checked the constituency I am moving to the torie has about a 7k majority and happily the challenger appears to be an independent so don't even have to hold my nose and vote labour or lib dem

https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1377914071677349890

Andy_JS said:

https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1377914071677349890

So if that is what he believes how the hell are we ever meant to unlock?

@Andy_JS I hope its not news to Boris that almost everyone on my street appears to have had at the very least 1 guest over, indoors, this week.