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 they ever get around to replacing the Lords, it would be interesting to play around with getting better representation in the political process for groups underserved by one person one vote. This is after all the same premise for bishops sitting in Parliament. The inverting demographic period is an obvious target.
But what about going a step further and having a ring fenced lobby empowered on behalf of those not yet born? I call it the Cathedral Lobby, in place to ensure proper attention on big challenges and opportunities for human civilisation that are a) highly likely to occur, b) are improbable in our lifetime, and c) will take a multi generational effort to confront. Climate change broadly fits this of course but also supervolcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, shifting global polarity, solar weather, AI, bioengineering etc... And on the opportunities side, interstellar probes (and travel), terraforming, AI, bioengineering, fusion and Dyson spheres etc...
The concern shouldn’t be about age per se, but about economic activity. That the economically inactive apparently have a stranglehold on our democracy is certainly not a healthy state of affairs, and leads to distorted policies that protect them whilst shifting the burden onto those still contributing to growing the economy.
A glaring example would be council tax support, where nowadays both the unemployed and the lowest income of working families have to pay a significant proportion of the council tax whereas millions of pensioners still have their council tax paid for them in full by order of HMG.
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?
I was surprised by that comment and have not heard it before
There is a reduction if the pensioner loses their spouse but not paying Council tax at all is not the case
The battle for electoral success is fought in the 40 to 50 age group. The Tories won in 2019 by moving the age point at which they got most votes down to 39. In 2017, it was further into the 40s.
Yes, this should be Labour's target age group, basically Centrist Dads like me. They have the advantage with Centrist Mums already. There will always be some left wing pensioners, and interestingly the LD vote is pretty even across all age groups.
I would suggest that policies aimed at the young can be popular with the middle aged too. Partly because we are worried about our teen and twenty-something kids getting established in life, but also because of more recent memories of being that age ourselves.
Reform of the Student Loan situation was quite popular with my age peers in 2017, and should be a centre-piece of Labour policy. Zero-interest would almost be a free policy as it is increasingly obvious that most are going to be written off anyway. Negative interest not such a bad idea too.
Social care funded by NI for pensioners too, with NI eventually being subsumed into income tax.
Reform of student loans is not, regardless of the merits of it, going to change many votes. Those who benefit from student loans are going to overwhelmingly vote Labour already and would not switch to the tories for this.
Regarding oldies being sheltered by the tories. Try telling those who saved all their lives, paid vast sums in tax for the NHS, and find their homes have to be sold to pay for end of life residential care. That is a far bigger disgrace than student loans.
The concern shouldn’t be about age per se, but about economic activity. That the economically inactive apparently have a stranglehold on our democracy is certainly not a healthy state of affairs, and leads to distorted policies that protect them whilst shifting the burden onto those still contributing to growing the economy.
A glaring example would be council tax support, where nowadays both the unemployed and the lowest income of working families have to pay a significant proportion of the council tax whereas millions of pensioners still have their council tax paid for them in full by order of HMG.
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?
That policy would disenfranchise pretty much all pensioners too.
Pretty well anyone with much of a 'private'...... more than the full OAP ..... pays income tax. The personal allowance isn't very different from a full OAP.
The concern shouldn’t be about age per se, but about economic activity. That the economically inactive apparently have a stranglehold on our democracy is certainly not a healthy state of affairs, and leads to distorted policies that protect them whilst shifting the burden onto those still contributing to growing the economy.
A glaring example would be council tax support, where nowadays both the unemployed and the lowest income of working families have to pay a significant proportion of the council tax whereas millions of pensioners still have their council tax paid for them in full by order of HMG.
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?
I was surprised by that comment and have not heard it before
There is a reduction if the pensioner loses their spouse but not paying Council tax at all is not the case
I would need evidence of this to be honest
I suspect, Mr G that both you and I would be interested in further and better particulars?
It's quite striking that every single segment of the population that has a higher than average propensity to vote Conservative also has a higher than average propensity to turn out to vote, according to IPSOS Mori. The highest turnout, 80%, was among degree holders aged over 55, who split 49/25 in favour of the Conservatives.
Yes, a good thing we have a democratic government that isn't tempted to make it harder to vote.
If you are caring for a partner diagnosed with dementia you can receive a council tax deduction. Equally if you have to live in a larger house to accommodate a wheelchair, you also can get a reduction.
(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!)
On Mar 23rd 2021, I asked PM what he thought main legacy challenge wld be. “The loss of learning. That’s the thing we’ve got to focus on” “Our future as a country depends on us now repaying that generation, making sure they get the education they need” PM words 👇🏻 https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1400354310085558275/photo/1
The concern shouldn’t be about age per se, but about economic activity. That the economically inactive apparently have a stranglehold on our democracy is certainly not a healthy state of affairs, and leads to distorted policies that protect them whilst shifting the burden onto those still contributing to growing the economy.
A glaring example would be council tax support, where nowadays both the unemployed and the lowest income of working families have to pay a significant proportion of the council tax whereas millions of pensioners still have their council tax paid for them in full by order of HMG.
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?
I was surprised by that comment and have not heard it before
There is a reduction if the pensioner loses their spouse but not paying Council tax at all is not the case
I would need evidence of this to be honest
I suspect, Mr G that both you and I would be interested in further and better particulars?
Indeed but of course we are in Wales and it is fairly certain it is different
But I have not heard of anyone being exempt from paying all or part of council tax
On Mar 23rd 2021, I asked PM what he thought main legacy challenge wld be. “The loss of learning. That’s the thing we’ve got to focus on” “Our future as a country depends on us now repaying that generation, making sure they get the education they need” PM words 👇🏻 https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1400354310085558275/photo/1
Good.
Now follow through and abolish the key barriers to doing so - OFSTED, OFQUAL and the DfE.
Rather than bunging £1.5 billion to your mates in a failed organisation like Teach First.
If GB News is to the right of the current offering (not especially difficult) why would people be persuaded by that if the BBC hasn't made them left wing?
Doubtless now that both Germany and France have effectively banned almost all British travellers, the government can afford to move both of them onto its green list, alongside the other countries that won't let us in?
The concern shouldn’t be about age per se, but about economic activity. That the economically inactive apparently have a stranglehold on our democracy is certainly not a healthy state of affairs, and leads to distorted policies that protect them whilst shifting the burden onto those still contributing to growing the economy.
A glaring example would be council tax support, where nowadays both the unemployed and the lowest income of working families have to pay a significant proportion of the council tax whereas millions of pensioners still have their council tax paid for them in full by order of HMG.
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?
I was surprised by that comment and have not heard it before
There is a reduction if the pensioner loses their spouse but not paying Council tax at all is not the case
It's quite striking that every single segment of the population that has a higher than average propensity to vote Conservative also has a higher than average propensity to turn out to vote, according to IPSOS Mori. The highest turnout, 80%, was among degree holders aged over 55, who split 49/25 in favour of the Conservatives.
Yes, a good thing we have a democratic government that isn't tempted to make it harder to vote.
Oh.
I have to prove who I am to pick up parcels - why should I not have to to vote? As a minimum if you don't attend with your polling card, you should have to provide something else. It may not be the worst problem around the security of voting (that is surely abuse of postal voting) but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
If GB News is to the right of the current offering (not especially difficult) why would people be persuaded by that if the BBC hasn't made them left wing?
The BBC isn't left wing. R4 is like a Tory party political broadcast these days, I can't listen to it. If you want to see how this plays out, take a look at what 20 years of Fox News has achieved in America. People who live in a world of alternative facts.
If GB News is to the right of the current offering (not especially difficult) why would people be persuaded by that if the BBC hasn't made them left wing?
Indeed, I'd suggest that if anything the current set up in TV news is actually helping the Tories.
There was some brief speculation on the last thread about support or otherwise for delaying June 21st - suggesting support came from the elderly/fully vaccinated (and those against lockdowns anyway), and opposition from those net yet vaccinated. Basically U40s. I suspect this is a misreading of what is driving views on this particular stage.
For the vast majority of people I think it is (probably rightly) perceived that the next stage of unlocking will allow them to do little that they can’t, or aren’t, doing at the moment. Since they are content with the current restrictions they are in no mood to take “risks” which might actually result in any sort of rolling back if it goes wrong. And then there is another massive group who perceive a further huge disadvantage to lifting restrictions. Those who are working at home and under current rules won’t be asked to come into their offices. For them June 21st could represent a massive perceived expectation of decline in their quality of life.
So I do not find it surprising that public support for no delay is finely balanced at best. Lots of the rhetoric makes it sound as if we are still near prisoners in our own homes. That is not the reality, and impacts on businesses etc is never something that will drive public polls because many do not make a link. If they see a pub with all tables occupied on a sunny afternoon they assume it must be making money.
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!
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.
It's quite striking that every single segment of the population that has a higher than average propensity to vote Conservative also has a higher than average propensity to turn out to vote, according to IPSOS Mori. The highest turnout, 80%, was among degree holders aged over 55, who split 49/25 in favour of the Conservatives.
Yes, a good thing we have a democratic government that isn't tempted to make it harder to vote.
Oh.
I have to prove who I am to pick up parcels - why should I not have to to vote? As a minimum if you don't attend with your polling card, you should have to provide something else. It may not be the worst problem around the security of voting (that is surely abuse of postal voting) but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
You have to provide ID to pick up a parcel because there is a demonstrable risk of fraud in that case. Personation isn't a problem in UK elections. All the voting fraud is around postal votes, which this law won't have any effect on. So if there's no problem to fix, why are they doing it? Don't be naive.
Bit like HMY Britannia 2.0 - is there an age divide over whether it should be launched or not?
The first render of HMY Flaggy McFlagface has appeared and it looks like Cammell Laird are designing it in Roblox.
The fact that estimated cost has doubled since Johnson started going on about it will, of course, be of no concern to the tories.
Don't worry - money won't be spaffed at an actual ship builder. No, one of the Tory donors is right now founding a new company to build the boat and as with PPE will be awarded the contract without tender despite having no past experience in shipbuilding.
Bit like HMY Britannia 2.0 - is there an age divide over whether it should be launched or not?
The first render of HMY Flaggy McFlagface has appeared and it looks like Cammell Laird are designing it in Roblox.
The fact that estimated cost has doubled since Johnson started going on about it will, of course, be of no concern to the tories.
Don't worry - money won't be spaffed at an actual ship builder. No, one of the Tory donors is right now founding a new company to build the boat and as with PPE will be awarded the contract without tender despite having no past experience in shipbuilding.
Bit like HMY Britannia 2.0 - is there an age divide over whether it should be launched or not?
The first render of HMY Flaggy McFlagface has appeared and it looks like Cammell Laird are designing it in Roblox.
The fact that estimated cost has doubled since Johnson started going on about it will, of course, be of no concern to the tories.
Don't worry - money won't be spaffed at an actual ship builder. No, one of the Tory donors is right now founding a new company to build the boat and as with PPE will be awarded the contract without tender despite having no past experience in shipbuilding.
Although even at that, they would still do better than the Scottish Government has managed over those CalMac ferries.
On Mar 23rd 2021, I asked PM what he thought main legacy challenge wld be. “The loss of learning. That’s the thing we’ve got to focus on” “Our future as a country depends on us now repaying that generation, making sure they get the education they need” PM words 👇🏻 https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1400354310085558275/photo/1
Good.
Now follow through and abolish the key barriers to doing so - OFSTED, OFQUAL and the DfE.
Rather than bunging £1.5 billion to your mates in a failed organisation like Teach First.
I wonder if the reason Rishi only allowed 1.7 billion of the 15 billion is to do with the Barnett formula
Applying that to 1.7 v 15 billion is an enormous difference and with indyref2 on the table
The concern shouldn’t be about age per se, but about economic activity. That the economically inactive apparently have a stranglehold on our democracy is certainly not a healthy state of affairs, and leads to distorted policies that protect them whilst shifting the burden onto those still contributing to growing the economy.
A glaring example would be council tax support, where nowadays both the unemployed and the lowest income of working families have to pay a significant proportion of the council tax whereas millions of pensioners still have their council tax paid for them in full by order of HMG.
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?
I was surprised by that comment and have not heard it before
There is a reduction if the pensioner loses their spouse but not paying Council tax at all is not the case
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.
Thanks for posting that. It does show the limits of the "you get your blue rosette along with your mortgage" and "no heart, no head" theories. It's not that they were wrong, but they only applied to a smallish sector of the population.
Up to 2015, there were substantial chunks of young Conservatives and retired Socialists.
By 2017, things had changed. And whilst that doesn't prove it's a Brexit split (in which case we, as a society, have all sorts of problems), it's pretty strongly suggestive.
It's quite striking that every single segment of the population that has a higher than average propensity to vote Conservative also has a higher than average propensity to turn out to vote, according to IPSOS Mori. The highest turnout, 80%, was among degree holders aged over 55, who split 49/25 in favour of the Conservatives.
Yes, a good thing we have a democratic government that isn't tempted to make it harder to vote.
Oh.
I have to prove who I am to pick up parcels - why should I not have to to vote? As a minimum if you don't attend with your polling card, you should have to provide something else. It may not be the worst problem around the security of voting (that is surely abuse of postal voting) but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
You have to provide ID to pick up a parcel because there is a demonstrable risk of fraud in that case. Personation isn't a problem in UK elections. All the voting fraud is around postal votes, which this law won't have any effect on. So if there's no problem to fix, why are they doing it? Don't be naive.
Not having to provide any identification except one’s word is a very British thing and I would be very sad to see it go. It shouldn’t go unless there is a compelling reason to and I can’t say I’ve seen one yet.
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.
The concern shouldn’t be about age per se, but about economic activity. That the economically inactive apparently have a stranglehold on our democracy is certainly not a healthy state of affairs, and leads to distorted policies that protect them whilst shifting the burden onto those still contributing to growing the economy.
A glaring example would be council tax support, where nowadays both the unemployed and the lowest income of working families have to pay a significant proportion of the council tax whereas millions of pensioners still have their council tax paid for them in full by order of HMG.
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?
I was surprised by that comment and have not heard it before
There is a reduction if the pensioner loses their spouse but not paying Council tax at all is not the case
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 have done.
Just because a argument is correct it doesn’t mean it is a good one.
It's quite striking that every single segment of the population that has a higher than average propensity to vote Conservative also has a higher than average propensity to turn out to vote, according to IPSOS Mori. The highest turnout, 80%, was among degree holders aged over 55, who split 49/25 in favour of the Conservatives.
Yes, a good thing we have a democratic government that isn't tempted to make it harder to vote.
Oh.
I have to prove who I am to pick up parcels - why should I not have to to vote? As a minimum if you don't attend with your polling card, you should have to provide something else. It may not be the worst problem around the security of voting (that is surely abuse of postal voting) but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
You have to provide ID to pick up a parcel because there is a demonstrable risk of fraud in that case. Personation isn't a problem in UK elections. All the voting fraud is around postal votes, which this law won't have any effect on. So if there's no problem to fix, why are they doing it? Don't be naive.
Naive - you presumably think it has sinister connotations? I happen to believe that the right to vote is sacrosanct and important enough that you should have some means of proving who you are. Presumably the voters you fear wont be able to vote, also cannot retrieve parcels?
Labour are just shading it with working age people if you include students and don’t include people who work aged 65 or over, I doubt that entitles them to be called ‘the party of the workers’
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.
Thanks for posting that. It does show the limits of the "you get your blue rosette along with your mortgage" and "no heart, no head" theories. It's not that they were wrong, but they only applied to a smallish sector of the population.
Up to 2015, there were substantial chunks of young Conservatives and retired Socialists.
By 2017, things had changed. And whilst that doesn't prove it's a Brexit split (in which case we, as a society, have all sorts of problems), it's pretty strongly suggestive.
Once again, Paul Weller nailed it:
"The values that we had once upon a time Seem stupid now that the rent must be paid And some bonds severed And others made"
Slight quibble that he said rent rather than mortgage, but that wouldn't have scanned very well.
It's quite striking that every single segment of the population that has a higher than average propensity to vote Conservative also has a higher than average propensity to turn out to vote, according to IPSOS Mori. The highest turnout, 80%, was among degree holders aged over 55, who split 49/25 in favour of the Conservatives.
Yes, a good thing we have a democratic government that isn't tempted to make it harder to vote.
Oh.
I have to prove who I am to pick up parcels - why should I not have to to vote? As a minimum if you don't attend with your polling card, you should have to provide something else. It may not be the worst problem around the security of voting (that is surely abuse of postal voting) but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
You have to provide ID to pick up a parcel because there is a demonstrable risk of fraud in that case. Personation isn't a problem in UK elections. All the voting fraud is around postal votes, which this law won't have any effect on. So if there's no problem to fix, why are they doing it? Don't be naive.
If you asked the great bulk of voters "There is a risk that somebody might go to a polling station before you and vote - as you - for a party you despise. The government is proposing to close off this possibility by requiring photo identification be shown at the polling station. Do you agree with them doing this?" they would say "Damned right I agree!"
It's quite striking that every single segment of the population that has a higher than average propensity to vote Conservative also has a higher than average propensity to turn out to vote, according to IPSOS Mori. The highest turnout, 80%, was among degree holders aged over 55, who split 49/25 in favour of the Conservatives.
Yes, a good thing we have a democratic government that isn't tempted to make it harder to vote.
Oh.
I have to prove who I am to pick up parcels - why should I not have to to vote? As a minimum if you don't attend with your polling card, you should have to provide something else. It may not be the worst problem around the security of voting (that is surely abuse of postal voting) but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
You have to provide ID to pick up a parcel because there is a demonstrable risk of fraud in that case. Personation isn't a problem in UK elections. All the voting fraud is around postal votes, which this law won't have any effect on. So if there's no problem to fix, why are they doing it? Don't be naive.
Voter ID - like the redrawing of constituencies - will not now happen. When the people to be disenfranchised by ID and the MPs to lose there seats were all Labour then there was purpose in doing so. Now? The government would be losing its own voters and cutting back its MPs.
So what we now have is virtue signalling. Show the troops and the heartland voters that you want to stop their money being wasted up north but don't actually do anything. Like how we keep announcing that we have taken back control of our borders but in reality have only bought the Home Secretary a jacket and sent her out on a photoshoot.
Mr. Boy, haven't listened to the radio for a long time.
On TV, it's pretty soft left liberal.
Also, the Fox News gibe seems unfair given it's not broadcast anything yet, and Ofcom (presumably) would prevent something too far. Although Sky News threw a massive pro-EU wobbly...
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.
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.
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
The concern shouldn’t be about age per se, but about economic activity. That the economically inactive apparently have a stranglehold on our democracy is certainly not a healthy state of affairs, and leads to distorted policies that protect them whilst shifting the burden onto those still contributing to growing the economy.
A glaring example would be council tax support, where nowadays both the unemployed and the lowest income of working families have to pay a significant proportion of the council tax whereas millions of pensioners still have their council tax paid for them in full by order of HMG.
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?
I was surprised by that comment and have not heard it before
There is a reduction if the pensioner loses their spouse but not paying Council tax at all is not the case
I would be very interested to know just how many actually qualify for this and of course it is not a general handout
about 1.5 million pensioners in England
To be honest it does sound a fair scheme, they are hardly well off
Neither are the three million plus low income employed and unemployed younger people, who have had their 100% support taken away. There are plenty of case studies around as to the impact these cuts have had on many low income families.
The point - which is back where we started - is that pensioners have been protected from many of the cuts that have been imposed on younger people.
The qualification for getting 100% support is age; there is no other way to get it, however poor you are.
It's quite striking that every single segment of the population that has a higher than average propensity to vote Conservative also has a higher than average propensity to turn out to vote, according to IPSOS Mori. The highest turnout, 80%, was among degree holders aged over 55, who split 49/25 in favour of the Conservatives.
Yes, a good thing we have a democratic government that isn't tempted to make it harder to vote.
Oh.
I have to prove who I am to pick up parcels - why should I not have to to vote? As a minimum if you don't attend with your polling card, you should have to provide something else. It may not be the worst problem around the security of voting (that is surely abuse of postal voting) but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
You have to provide ID to pick up a parcel because there is a demonstrable risk of fraud in that case. Personation isn't a problem in UK elections. All the voting fraud is around postal votes, which this law won't have any effect on. So if there's no problem to fix, why are they doing it? Don't be naive.
If you asked the great bulk of voters "There is a risk that somebody might go to a polling station before you and vote - as you - for a party you despise. The government is proposing to close off this possibility by requiring photo identification be shown at the polling station. Do you agree with them doing this?" they would say "Damned right I agree!"
If you told them "you have more chance of being struck by lightening than having your vote stolen through personification, but thousands of voters are going to be disenfranchised in a way that will likely skew the result in favour of the party doing this, should we go ahead?" the answer might differ.
It's quite striking that every single segment of the population that has a higher than average propensity to vote Conservative also has a higher than average propensity to turn out to vote, according to IPSOS Mori. The highest turnout, 80%, was among degree holders aged over 55, who split 49/25 in favour of the Conservatives.
Yes, a good thing we have a democratic government that isn't tempted to make it harder to vote.
Oh.
I have to prove who I am to pick up parcels - why should I not have to to vote? As a minimum if you don't attend with your polling card, you should have to provide something else. It may not be the worst problem around the security of voting (that is surely abuse of postal voting) but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
You have to provide ID to pick up a parcel because there is a demonstrable risk of fraud in that case. Personation isn't a problem in UK elections. All the voting fraud is around postal votes, which this law won't have any effect on. So if there's no problem to fix, why are they doing it? Don't be naive.
If you asked the great bulk of voters "There is a risk that somebody might go to a polling station before you and vote - as you - for a party you despise. The government is proposing to close off this possibility by requiring photo identification be shown at the polling station. Do you agree with them doing this?" they would say "Damned right I agree!"
Well of course, but you have biased the question in the first place (as per Sir Humphrey), by saying 'There is a risk ....,' when in fact there is practically zero risk.
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
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.
The "lab expert" who "warned" Fauci responds. https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1400182670458384384 I know it's super mundane, but it isn't actually a "massive cover-up" Sharri. It's just science. Boring, I know, but it's quite a helpful thing to have in times of uncertainty.
It's quite striking that every single segment of the population that has a higher than average propensity to vote Conservative also has a higher than average propensity to turn out to vote, according to IPSOS Mori. The highest turnout, 80%, was among degree holders aged over 55, who split 49/25 in favour of the Conservatives.
Yes, a good thing we have a democratic government that isn't tempted to make it harder to vote.
Oh.
I have to prove who I am to pick up parcels - why should I not have to to vote? As a minimum if you don't attend with your polling card, you should have to provide something else. It may not be the worst problem around the security of voting (that is surely abuse of postal voting) but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
You have to provide ID to pick up a parcel because there is a demonstrable risk of fraud in that case. Personation isn't a problem in UK elections. All the voting fraud is around postal votes, which this law won't have any effect on. So if there's no problem to fix, why are they doing it? Don't be naive.
If you asked the great bulk of voters "There is a risk that somebody might go to a polling station before you and vote - as you - for a party you despise. The government is proposing to close off this possibility by requiring photo identification be shown at the polling station. Do you agree with them doing this?" they would say "Damned right I agree!"
If you told them "you have more chance of being struck by lightening than having your vote stolen through personification, but thousands of voters are going to be disenfranchised in a way that will likely skew the result in favour of the party doing this, should we go ahead?" the answer might differ.
The problem isn’t ID per se; it’s photo ID. We all have a polling card.
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!
You must be joking if you think the BBC is balanced
Not managing to be balanced all the time does not mean attempting to maintain balance should just be abandoned.
But the reaction to GB news has been absurd. Some statements from its founders make me doubtful about its motivations and direction, nor is there a market for balanced news i think, but as noted above it's not even broadcast yet - skepticism, sure, but we cannot condemn it yet.
It's quite striking that every single segment of the population that has a higher than average propensity to vote Conservative also has a higher than average propensity to turn out to vote, according to IPSOS Mori. The highest turnout, 80%, was among degree holders aged over 55, who split 49/25 in favour of the Conservatives.
Yes, a good thing we have a democratic government that isn't tempted to make it harder to vote.
Oh.
I have to prove who I am to pick up parcels - why should I not have to to vote? As a minimum if you don't attend with your polling card, you should have to provide something else. It may not be the worst problem around the security of voting (that is surely abuse of postal voting) but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
You have to provide ID to pick up a parcel because there is a demonstrable risk of fraud in that case. Personation isn't a problem in UK elections. All the voting fraud is around postal votes, which this law won't have any effect on. So if there's no problem to fix, why are they doing it? Don't be naive.
If you asked the great bulk of voters "There is a risk that somebody might go to a polling station before you and vote - as you - for a party you despise. The government is proposing to close off this possibility by requiring photo identification be shown at the polling station. Do you agree with them doing this?" they would say "Damned right I agree!"
If you told them "you have more chance of being struck by lightening than having your vote stolen through personification, but thousands of voters are going to be disenfranchised in a way that will likely skew the result in favour of the party doing this, should we go ahead?" the answer might differ.
When I turned up to the polling station at the last GE I was told that I had already voted.
I put it down to cock up rather than conspiracy but even matching an ID with the printed list would mean an extra check to avoid the former.
That said, I am very aware of the implications of ID cards in terms of inhibiting voters so can live without it.
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.
Bit like HMY Britannia 2.0 - is there an age divide over whether it should be launched or not?
The first render of HMY Flaggy McFlagface has appeared and it looks like Cammell Laird are designing it in Roblox.
The fact that estimated cost has doubled since Johnson started going on about it will, of course, be of no concern to the tories.
Don't worry - money won't be spaffed at an actual ship builder. No, one of the Tory donors is right now founding a new company to build the boat and as with PPE will be awarded the contract without tender despite having no past experience in shipbuilding.
Hasnt ex cabinet Minister Chris Grayling got a track record in this sort of thing?
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
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
The fact that, although everybody knew the Wuhan lab was a prime candidate, this knowledge was “tainted” and ignored for a year in the eyes of the media because it was promoted by those of a right leaning tendency, shows how left biased UK and US media 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!
You must be joking if you think the BBC is balanced
Not managing to be balanced all the time does not mean attempting to maintain balance should just be abandoned.
But the reaction to GB news has been absurd. Some statements from its founders make me doubtful about its motivations and direction, nor is there a market for balanced news i think, but as noted above it's not even broadcast yet - skepticism, sure, but we cannot condemn it yet.
Anything that weakens the BBC stranglehold on news has to be a good thing.
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.
It's quite striking that every single segment of the population that has a higher than average propensity to vote Conservative also has a higher than average propensity to turn out to vote, according to IPSOS Mori. The highest turnout, 80%, was among degree holders aged over 55, who split 49/25 in favour of the Conservatives.
Yes, a good thing we have a democratic government that isn't tempted to make it harder to vote.
Oh.
I have to prove who I am to pick up parcels - why should I not have to to vote? As a minimum if you don't attend with your polling card, you should have to provide something else. It may not be the worst problem around the security of voting (that is surely abuse of postal voting) but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
You have to provide ID to pick up a parcel because there is a demonstrable risk of fraud in that case. Personation isn't a problem in UK elections. All the voting fraud is around postal votes, which this law won't have any effect on. So if there's no problem to fix, why are they doing it? Don't be naive.
If you asked the great bulk of voters "There is a risk that somebody might go to a polling station before you and vote - as you - for a party you despise. The government is proposing to close off this possibility by requiring photo identification be shown at the polling station. Do you agree with them doing this?" they would say "Damned right I agree!"
If you told them "you have more chance of being struck by lightening than having your vote stolen through personification, but thousands of voters are going to be disenfranchised in a way that will likely skew the result in favour of the party doing this, should we go ahead?" the answer might differ.
The problem isn’t ID per se; it’s photo ID. We all have a polling card.
Hence my view that it should be presented, and if not then ID required.
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?
It's quite striking that every single segment of the population that has a higher than average propensity to vote Conservative also has a higher than average propensity to turn out to vote, according to IPSOS Mori. The highest turnout, 80%, was among degree holders aged over 55, who split 49/25 in favour of the Conservatives.
Yes, a good thing we have a democratic government that isn't tempted to make it harder to vote.
Oh.
I have to prove who I am to pick up parcels - why should I not have to to vote? As a minimum if you don't attend with your polling card, you should have to provide something else. It may not be the worst problem around the security of voting (that is surely abuse of postal voting) but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
You have to provide ID to pick up a parcel because there is a demonstrable risk of fraud in that case. Personation isn't a problem in UK elections. All the voting fraud is around postal votes, which this law won't have any effect on. So if there's no problem to fix, why are they doing it? Don't be naive.
If you asked the great bulk of voters "There is a risk that somebody might go to a polling station before you and vote - as you - for a party you despise. The government is proposing to close off this possibility by requiring photo identification be shown at the polling station. Do you agree with them doing this?" they would say "Damned right I agree!"
If you told them "you have more chance of being struck by lightening than having your vote stolen through personification, but thousands of voters are going to be disenfranchised in a way that will likely skew the result in favour of the party doing this, should we go ahead?" the answer might differ.
The problem isn’t ID per se; it’s photo ID. We all have a polling card.
Hence my view that it should be presented, and if not then ID required.
If there are really serious concerns over fraud, we could always vote by fingerprint. Simple, robust and easy to do with our electoral system, flawed as it is.
The fact this has not been suggested indicates to me that it’s not the primary concern of the government.
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
The fact that, although everybody knew the Wuhan lab was a prime candidate, this knowledge was “tainted” and ignored for a year in the eyes of the media because it was promoted by those of a right leaning tendency, shows how left biased UK and US media are.
If Covid wasn’t such an overwhelming crisis, this would be a massive crisis on the front pages: a terrible failure in western media, aiding and abetting a huge cover-up by China
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.
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 they ever get around to replacing the Lords, it would be interesting to play around with getting better representation in the political process for groups underserved by one person one vote. This is after all the same premise for bishops sitting in Parliament. The inverting demographic period is an obvious target.
But what about going a step further and having a ring fenced lobby empowered on behalf of those not yet born? I call it the Cathedral Lobby, in place to ensure proper attention on big challenges and opportunities for human civilisation that are a) highly likely to occur, b) are improbable in our lifetime, and c) will take a multi generational effort to confront. Climate change broadly fits this of course but also supervolcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, shifting global polarity, solar weather, AI, bioengineering etc... And on the opportunities side, interstellar probes (and travel), terraforming, AI, bioengineering, fusion and Dyson spheres etc...
Politics as it exists is just so mundane.
Surely once we have an alien dictatorship we will look back on the present as the good old days?
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!
You must be joking if you think the BBC is balanced
Not managing to be balanced all the time does not mean attempting to maintain balance should just be abandoned.
But the reaction to GB news has been absurd. Some statements from its founders make me doubtful about its motivations and direction, nor is there a market for balanced news i think, but as noted above it's not even broadcast yet - skepticism, sure, but we cannot condemn it yet.
Anything that weakens the BBC stranglehold on news has to be a good thing.
What BBC stranglehold on news? What about news agencies (like Reuters), newspapers and other broadcasters? Will GB News even be a newsgathering operation or will it just be reading out agency reports?
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!
You must be joking if you think the BBC is balanced
Not managing to be balanced all the time does not mean attempting to maintain balance should just be abandoned.
But the reaction to GB news has been absurd. Some statements from its founders make me doubtful about its motivations and direction, nor is there a market for balanced news i think, but as noted above it's not even broadcast yet - skepticism, sure, but we cannot condemn it yet.
The bigger question about GB News is the financial one. Sky News has never paid its way, but runs for PR reasons. GBN plans to be cheaper, by not gathering so much news, but how much as income can you get around a nightly Andrew Neill show? (Iain Dale's show on LBC gets about 600k listeners over the course of a week- James O'Brexit about 1.3 million).
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.
The battle for electoral success is fought in the 40 to 50 age group. The Tories won in 2019 by moving the age point at which they got most votes down to 39. In 2017, it was further into the 40s.
Yes, this should be Labour's target age group, basically Centrist Dads like me. They have the advantage with Centrist Mums already. There will always be some left wing pensioners, and interestingly the LD vote is pretty even across all age groups.
I would suggest that policies aimed at the young can be popular with the middle aged too. Partly because we are worried about our teen and twenty-something kids getting established in life, but also because of more recent memories of being that age ourselves.
Reform of the Student Loan situation was quite popular with my age peers in 2017, and should be a centre-piece of Labour policy. Zero-interest would almost be a free policy as it is increasingly obvious that most are going to be written off anyway. Negative interest not such a bad idea too.
Social care funded by NI for pensioners too, with NI eventually being subsumed into income tax.
"Zero-interest would almost be a free policy as it is increasingly obvious that most are going to be written off anyway."
I reckon Boris will do this soon - to cut Labour off from getting a popular policy.
Magpie Boris will be happy to leave Labour with a rag-tag of unpopular stuff.
Isn’t that actually much easier said than done, because most of the loans are sold off commercially - both to get the debt off the governments books, and eliminate the risk of unpaid loans decades down the line.
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 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.
Brexit, or Corbyn? Those old enough to remember when there were lots of Corbyn-types around, knew it wasn’t for them - whereas the younger voters were taken in by the magic grandpa.
Gay people are cleverer, more advanced than straights. According to this BBC report, gays had photography in the 18th Century (see the picture captions). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-57176199
Am I the only one with a sufficiently puerile sense of humour to note that one of the academics mentioned in the article is a Professor Cocks?
On Worldometer, China, with a population of 1,400,000,000, is at number 98 in terms of cases, just behind Montenegro (population 622,000)
In terms of deaths, China, population 1,400,000,000, is in 61st place, just behind North Macedonia (population 2m)
Is this credible? Not really. As we’ve often discussed, China must be simply under-counting. Right?
Well maybe. But what if China isn’t undercounting, particularly? After all, their economy has bounced back, it has already regained all lost GDP, and they are living fairly normally, unlike us. Their behaviour speaks of a genuinely flattened pandemic
How have they done this? Are they superhuman? One answer could be this: they knew exactly what virus they were dealing with. They knew how it spread. They knew how to quarantine against it. They knew all the protocols, they maybe had therapeutics (vaccines even?) ready to go. Because they engineered the damn virus in the first place. In the Iab in Wuhan. Possibly as a bio weapon
The argument against this is the early chaos we saw in wuhan and hubei. But that only argues for an inadvertent leak, rather than deliberate release. It still came from the lab
Anyone still arguing for natural zoonosis has to explain China’s phenomenal ability to contain this virus, almost as if they were forewarned
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.
Brexit, or Corbyn? Those old enough to remember when there were lots of Corbyn-types around, knew it wasn’t for them - whereas the younger voters were taken in by the magic grandpa.
I think there is a lot of truth in this. PM Corbyn was a pretty frightening thought for those of us that can remember the last time the middle to far left held sway in the country. Although I am a Brexit-sceptic, I can understand why some people saw it as something "patriotic". If you then amplify this by Labour having a leader who seemed to be ashamed of his country , you can see why older voters would have been repelled from voting Labour, and either stayed at home or voted blue.
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.
On Worldometer, China, with a population of 1,400,000,000, is at number 98 in terms of cases, just behind Montenegro (population 622,000)
In terms of deaths, China, population 1,400,000,000, is in 61st place, just behind North Macedonia (population 2m)
Is this credible? Not really. As we’ve often discussed, China must be simply under-counting. Right?
Well maybe. But what if China isn’t undercounting, particularly? After all, their economy has bounced back, it has already regained all lost GDP, and they are living fairly normally, unlike us. Their behaviour speaks of a genuinely flattened pandemic
How have they done this? Are they superhuman? One answer could be this: they knew exactly what virus they were dealing with. They knew how it spread. They knew how to quarantine against it. They knew all the protocols, they maybe had therapeutics (vaccines even?) ready to go. Because they engineered the damn virus in the first place. In the Iab in Wuhan. Possibly as a bio weapon
The argument against this is the early chaos we saw in wuhan and hubei. But that only argues for an inadvertent leak, rather than deliberate release. It still came from the lab
Anyone still arguing for natural zoonosis has to explain China’s phenomenal ability to contain this virus, almost as if they were forewarned
Alternatively, as it mainly kills old people and the majority of the outbreak was confined to one province, it wasn’t likely to do wild amounts of economic damage if hey were able to unlock quickly. Indeed, quite the contrary.
Which, due to the extreme strictness of their lockdown, they were.
How many of Labour’s “degree” supporters are people who wouldn’t have had a degree before Major’s reforms to the poly system?
We just need to be careful we are looking at consistent bases
A “degree” is a degree is a degree. Some of the polys provide a better education than the old world.
Just to be clear I wasn’t using the inverted commas in a disparaging way, just for classification.
My point is simply that a large percentage of people who are classed as having degrees now wouldn’t have had degrees 30 years ago.
So - as someone else pointed out - part of this data set needs to be controlled for age. In addition, I suspect that people who get a degree in a non academic subject from a less recognised university are more likely to struggle economically (plus have student debt) so - once again - the data isn’t comparable over time
I think you are wrong, an engineer or healthcare professional from a poly is more immediately economically useful than, say, a theologian from Cambridge. I know a couple of the latter. Good grief.
The way you classify people with a degree is the same today as it was 30 years ago. They have a degree.
That depends if the theologian from Cambridge wanted to join the Church or be a Theology academic, in which case the degree would be very useful to them.
Given we now have over 40% of 18 year olds going to university compared to only about 10% 40 years ago then by definition more graduates are only going to be earning an average wage now even if they do a degree with a high graduate earning premium like law or business.
40 years ago most graduates would have been in the top 10% of earners and more Tory inclined than those coming out now with debt and only an average wage at best and years from getting to buy their first home
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
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.
Yep - and it's human nature to want both someone to blame and a simple solution (close the labs!) when it might in fact just be a case of shit happens. Many would find the lab theory most acceptable - we know who to blame and we can do something about it. Second best is pinning it down to a wet market (we know broadly who to blame and we can at least shout at China about doing something about that). Worst is that a bat happened to shit in someones sandwich somewhere. Not much we can do about that (Martin Cruz Smith's Nightwing comes to mind)
On Worldometer, China, with a population of 1,400,000,000, is at number 98 in terms of cases, just behind Montenegro (population 622,000)
In terms of deaths, China, population 1,400,000,000, is in 61st place, just behind North Macedonia (population 2m)
Is this credible? Not really. As we’ve often discussed, China must be simply under-counting. Right?
Well maybe. But what if China isn’t undercounting, particularly? After all, their economy has bounced back, it has already regained all lost GDP, and they are living fairly normally, unlike us. Their behaviour speaks of a genuinely flattened pandemic
How have they done this? Are they superhuman? One answer could be this: they knew exactly what virus they were dealing with. They knew how it spread. They knew how to quarantine against it. They knew all the protocols, they maybe had therapeutics (vaccines even?) ready to go. Because they engineered the damn virus in the first place. In the Iab in Wuhan. Possibly as a bio weapon
The argument against this is the early chaos we saw in wuhan and hubei. But that only argues for an inadvertent leak, rather than deliberate release. It still came from the lab
Anyone still arguing for natural zoonosis has to explain China’s phenomenal ability to contain this virus, almost as if they were forewarned
The other counter-argument is if the knew the virus and had good vaccines, why did they sell frankly fairly mediocre ones to everyone else? To allay suspicion?
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.
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
I would say that the British Electoral Stdy has a much bigger sample and is a better guide than the Ipsos survey
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.
Yep - and it's human nature to want both someone to blame and a simple solution (close the labs!) when it might in fact just be a case of shit happens. Many would find the lab theory most acceptable - we know who to blame and we can do something about it. Second best is pinning it down to a wet market (we know broadly who to blame and we can at least shout at China about doing something about that). Worst is that a bat happened to shit in someones sandwich somewhere. Not much we can do about that (Martin Cruz Smith's Nightwing comes to mind)
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"
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
The fact that, although everybody knew the Wuhan lab was a prime candidate, this knowledge was “tainted” and ignored for a year in the eyes of the media because it was promoted by those of a right leaning tendency, shows how left biased UK and US media are.
A thought experiment:
How would people react differently to the lab leak theory if the lab had been in the USA or Britain or Israel.
Gay people are cleverer, more advanced than straights. According to this BBC report, gays had photography in the 18th Century (see the picture captions). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-57176199
Am I the only one with a sufficiently puerile sense of humour to note that one of the academics mentioned in the article is a Professor Cocks?
Yes, and it is a good job you pronounce Harry properly.
(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?
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!
Sure those over 75 would tend to say that children should not be allowed to vote for exact opposite reasons though. At your son's age 40 is ancient and they have no clue whatsoever about the world or how it works.
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!
You must be joking if you think the BBC is balanced
Not managing to be balanced all the time does not mean attempting to maintain balance should just be abandoned.
But the reaction to GB news has been absurd. Some statements from its founders make me doubtful about its motivations and direction, nor is there a market for balanced news i think, but as noted above it's not even broadcast yet - skepticism, sure, but we cannot condemn it yet.
Anything that weakens the BBC stranglehold on news has to be a good thing.
What BBC stranglehold on news? What about news agencies (like Reuters), newspapers and other broadcasters? Will GB News even be a newsgathering operation or will it just be reading out agency reports?
I think it will be pretty selective, gathering nuggets of news against which its putative viewers can 'react', plus plenty of self reinforcing praise. AF Neil's twitter account writ large in other words.
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
Comments
But what about going a step further and having a ring fenced lobby empowered on behalf of those not yet born? I call it the Cathedral Lobby, in place to ensure proper attention on big challenges and opportunities for human civilisation that are a) highly likely to occur, b) are improbable in our lifetime, and c) will take a multi generational effort to confront. Climate change broadly fits this of course but also supervolcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, shifting global polarity, solar weather, AI, bioengineering etc... And on the opportunities side, interstellar probes (and travel), terraforming, AI, bioengineering, fusion and Dyson spheres etc...
Politics as it exists is just so mundane.
Regarding oldies being sheltered by the tories. Try telling those who saved all their lives, paid vast sums in tax for the NHS, and find their homes have to be sold to pay for end of life residential care. That is a far bigger disgrace than student loans.
Oh.
"No, we can't afford it"
"A boat with flags on it?
"Fuck yeah!"
At least one party is going big on campaigning against HS2 in this by-election. The Greens are talking muchly about the ecological damage:
https://paulbigland.blog/2021/06/02/the-theatre-of-the-absurd-the-green-party-and-the-amersham-by-election/
(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!)
“Our future as a country depends on us now repaying that generation, making sure they get the education they need” PM words 👇🏻 https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1400354310085558275/photo/1
But I have not heard of anyone being exempt from paying all or part of council tax
Now follow through and abolish the key barriers to doing so - OFSTED, OFQUAL and the DfE.
Rather than bunging £1.5 billion to your mates in a failed organisation like Teach First.
If GB News is to the right of the current offering (not especially difficult) why would people be persuaded by that if the BBC hasn't made them left wing?
If you want to see how this plays out, take a look at what 20 years of Fox News has achieved in America. People who live in a world of alternative facts.
It usually means a leadership challenge is in the offing when tories start larping.
For the vast majority of people I think it is (probably rightly) perceived that the next stage of unlocking will allow them to do little that they can’t, or aren’t, doing at the moment. Since they are content with the current restrictions they are in no mood to take “risks” which might actually result in any sort of rolling back if it goes wrong. And then there is another massive group who perceive a further huge disadvantage to lifting restrictions. Those who are working at home and under current rules won’t be asked to come into their offices. For them June 21st could represent a massive perceived expectation of decline in their quality of life.
So I do not find it surprising that public support for no delay is finely balanced at best. Lots of the rhetoric makes it sound as if we are still near prisoners in our own homes. That is not the reality, and impacts on businesses etc is never something that will drive public polls because many do not make a link. If they see a pub with all tables occupied on a sunny afternoon they assume it must be making money.
Applying that to 1.7 v 15 billion is an enormous difference and with indyref2 on the table
Up to 2015, there were substantial chunks of young Conservatives and retired Socialists.
By 2017, things had changed. And whilst that doesn't prove it's a Brexit split (in which case we, as a society, have all sorts of problems), it's pretty strongly suggestive.
"The values that we had once upon a time
Seem stupid now that the rent must be paid
And some bonds severed
And others made"
Slight quibble that he said rent rather than mortgage, but that wouldn't have scanned very well.
So what we now have is virtue signalling. Show the troops and the heartland voters that you want to stop their money being wasted up north but don't actually do anything. Like how we keep announcing that we have taken back control of our borders but in reality have only bought the Home Secretary a jacket and sent her out on a photoshoot.
On TV, it's pretty soft left liberal.
Also, the Fox News gibe seems unfair given it's not broadcast anything yet, and Ofcom (presumably) would prevent something too far. Although Sky News threw a massive pro-EU wobbly...
Though they preferred "better sort of people" to the term wealthy.
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
https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-how-amateur-sleuths-broke-wuhan-lab-story-embarrassed-media-1596958
It is also highly persuasive, if you need to be persuaded that it came from the lab
The point - which is back where we started - is that pensioners have been protected from many of the cuts that have been imposed on younger people.
The qualification for getting 100% support is age; there is no other way to get it, however poor you are.
Maybe your alien chums brought it with them from Zog, on one of their survelling outings?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9645787/Emails-Fauci-warned-COVID-engineered-start-pandemic.html
The "lab expert" who "warned" Fauci responds.
https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1400182670458384384
I know it's super mundane, but it isn't actually a "massive cover-up" Sharri. It's just science. Boring, I know, but it's quite a helpful thing to have in times of uncertainty.
But the reaction to GB news has been absurd. Some statements from its founders make me doubtful about its motivations and direction, nor is there a market for balanced news i think, but as noted above it's not even broadcast yet - skepticism, sure, but we cannot condemn it yet.
I put it down to cock up rather than conspiracy but even matching an ID with the printed list would mean an extra check to avoid the former.
That said, I am very aware of the implications of ID cards in terms of inhibiting voters so can live without it.
BBC journalist writes a thread:
https://twitter.com/thejohnsudworth/status/1397223364725514248?s=21
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?
The fact this has not been suggested indicates to me that it’s not the primary concern of the government.
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.
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.
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).
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2019-election
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
On Worldometer, China, with a population of 1,400,000,000, is at number 98 in terms of cases, just behind Montenegro (population 622,000)
In terms of deaths, China, population 1,400,000,000, is in 61st place, just behind North Macedonia (population 2m)
Is this credible? Not really. As we’ve often discussed, China must be simply under-counting. Right?
Well maybe. But what if China isn’t undercounting, particularly? After all, their economy has bounced back, it has already regained all lost GDP, and they are living fairly normally, unlike us. Their behaviour speaks of a genuinely flattened pandemic
How have they done this? Are they superhuman? One answer could be this: they knew exactly what virus they were dealing with. They knew how it spread. They knew how to quarantine against it. They knew all the protocols, they maybe had therapeutics (vaccines even?) ready to go. Because they engineered the damn virus in the first place. In the Iab in Wuhan. Possibly as a bio weapon
The argument against this is the early chaos we saw in wuhan and hubei. But that only argues for an inadvertent leak, rather than deliberate release. It still came from the lab
Anyone still arguing for natural zoonosis has to explain China’s phenomenal ability to contain this virus, almost as if they were forewarned
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.
Which, due to the extreme strictness of their lockdown, they were.
Given we now have over 40% of 18 year olds going to university compared to only about 10% 40 years ago then by definition more graduates are only going to be earning an average wage now even if they do a degree with a high graduate earning premium like law or business.
40 years ago most graduates would have been in the top 10% of earners and more Tory inclined than those coming out now with debt and only an average wage at best and years from getting to buy their first home
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
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.
How would people react differently to the lab leak theory if the lab had been in the USA or Britain or Israel.
AF Neil's twitter account writ large in other words.