Printable View
Doesn't the single market come tied with freedom of movement?
Which would wreck the whole point a large number of people voted leave in the first place. We'd end up paying a bill and losing influence whilst achieving very little of what most leave voters wanted.
So this big "England votes on English laws" that the tories were so insistent on as a great moral and political line in the sand....?
I'm guessing it's no longer really a big priority. Quelle surprise.
The biggest fears were about a section of immigration which we had full control of in the first place. Which was why the UKIP-sponsored posters about freedom of movement meaning an influx of Muslims was both lying and stupid. Not stupid in terms of getting what they wanted; it was a genius move. But stupid in terms of the logic and what the politics-based Brexit deal will do to the country. If we approach any deal with the must have issue being single market access and the economic status quo, then we can accept whatever the price that requires, and argue the toss over what that allows. If we approach the negotiations with anything other than the economy as the must have, then we will screw our economy and this country for the rest of my lifetime. Europe matters hugely, as it determines our economy and from that everything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
The Tories have a majority in England. Take Northern Ireland out of the equation, and the SNP have a majority in Scotland and Labour in Wales, leaving the Tories with a majority in England. EVEL favours the Tories, even after this election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Even though a large part of it was due to non-EU immigration you could easily say they were voting for full control over our immigration, which many had been told was the only way to keep us safe, stop them taking services or housing.
Which would mean no freedom of movement, which would mean no access to the single market (as I understand it)
Note I am not at all suggesting that's what I want, but quite frankly if we aren't going to stop freedom of movement, which is what a very large percentage sorta voted on, then there is no point leaving the EU.
If that's the single issue they want above all else, then the decision is as stupid as I've said it to be. It will impact the economy, and from that everything else. I'll point out once more that the EU does not require freedom of movement per se, but movement of labour. That's a significant difference which other EU countries mark, but which the UK did not. There was already wriggle room there. If we decide we don't want wriggle room after all, then it goes back to what I've said about the economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
1. The EU does not require freedom of movement, but freedom of movement of labour. Unemployed EU citizens are not labour and their free movement is not guaranteed.
2. None of that applies to non-EU countries. The UK can restrict movement however it likes from countries outside the EU without it affecting EU agreements. It will impact relations with these other countries, but 50% of the UK's exports go to the EU. Which means every other country in the world put together amounts to our export market of the EU.
3. Are we relying on fuel prices remaining forever low? Are we teleporting our goods overseas to Asia and the Americas, independent of distance?
Edit: Addendum to 1. Even what freedom there is can be waived if public security or various other concerns is an issue. So known criminals, if likely to be a problem, can be barred entry. So can potential jihadis. Each, on a case by case basis, probably challengeable, but nonetheless at the discretion of the UK government.
As stupid as it was that is the reason a majority did it, full control over our borders.
Well that and the £350M a week extra for the NHS.
We can only give them it by losing access to the single market.
If we don't then the whole thing will just start back up again, and if we don't then we may as well just stay in the EU.
Doing some kind of botched job which actually pleases nobody and costs money seems pointless, although it does seem to be the plan...
Either do the sensible thing or follow the will of the electorate.
I was talking about youth vote turnout. it was in the 40% in 2015.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The crossover point is still around 35. And the oldest demographic still outnumbers the 18-24 demographic, and consistently turns out in the 70s. If anything, this election has shown that the centre is still where the election is won. Not the 20% hardcore support at either end of the spectrum. But the 60% that can swing either way. May took it for granted.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Again, my point is that if Corbyn can keep the momentum of 70% youth turn out going based on the results of this election isn't that a game changer?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I am asking the question of whether all the young showed up, simply because they were scared of May. I doubt it, because they didn't scare about brexit.
It's unexpected, but are you going to rely on it? Some 50-odd% of the 18-24s turned out in 1997, then they were down to 30-odd in 2001 (before Iraq). It'll be interesting to see how the votes panned out this election. The drop happened after the Tory manifesto came out, which contained some decidedly odd policies that might have been designed to scupper support taken for granted. It's doubtful if the Tories will run such a patently suicidal campaign again.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
TBH I think he can, the demographics still aren't necessarily onside in terms of old vs young but with more younger voters and less older voters in the next election, combined with Scottish Labour not encouraging people to vote Tory and with the Labour party itself not trying to launch coups every couple of years....Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
He could start to make some serious movement towards government.
Funny thing though - Corbyn still has a negative personal approval rating.
Also, looks like those who voted Labour and gave Corbyn his big swing were substantially composed of last-minuters. At present we don't know if that's Corbyn having an impact or May turning people off - she turned me off.
So, with a new leader the Tories might chip away at Corbyn's swing substantially. They'd likely only need to achieve a percentage point swing the other way to secure a majority.
Listened to an interesting programme on Radio 4, might have been any questions or any answers.
The youth vote came up and obviously talk got onto the record turnout amongst young people and then a very interesting call came in from a woman in her 30's with 2 young teenagers, 13 and 15. Apparently politics was being discussed quite regularly amongst her children and their school friends, her children had started coming home and having conversations about politics with her, Brexit was apparently the trigger for this.
More interestingly still was talk of the straw polls conducted and the results overwhelmingly favouring Corbyn. I don't know how possible it is, maybe someone can tell me but I would like May to hang on for the full 5 years or if not as long as possible. This defeat combined with Brexit actually going through is going to make the current young voters and those new ones coming through twice as determined.
TBH considering everything I can only assume that approval rating is guided much more by the older generations, personally I'd be much more interested in approval ratings of all those that vote.
Edit: I was quite upset the night of the Brexit vote but quite frankly the effects so far have incredibly positive, if we are talking trade off this is one I am willing to make.
Edit 2: Some very interesting polls on which way people would vote if the election was tomorrow, very interesting indeed.
The Tory manifesto was quite incredible, in how it seemingly sought to hit every single wrong note to piss off every demographic. The campaign, other than focusing on Corbyn, sought only to please one demographic: Brexit voters. It was based on the premise that UKIP was the gateway drug towards voting Tory. In the event, the UKIP vote evaporated as predicted, but fewer than predicted turned blue, with many returning to the red fold. With this overriding premise insufficiently correct, the Tories turned off significant numbers with their suicidal policies and May's non-appearances. Like I've said before, May's style is even more presidential than Blair ever was, except she has even less ability to carry it off, and consequently looks arrogant and out of touch. In many ways, May's campaign was the antithesis of Major in 1992.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
It should be remembered that the Tories remain in power despite all that May has done. The election has staved off hard Brexit for the time being, but the Tories are still in the driving seat.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Obviously things can change but to be honest in a short term pain long term gain kind of way that could be for the best, her or another Tory in charge for a couple of years at least. I think young people are going to be disgusted at the thinking of the party they are now in cahoots with as well.
If you're banking on young people becoming disgusted with the DUP alliance, note that most of that demographic is already voting Labour. There's not much left to gain there. Before May made a determined effort to throw these votes away, the two ends of the spectrum were solidly Labour and Tory. The crossover point is around 35. That's roughly where the centre is. What you do is retain sufficient of your core support, and push that line as far as you can, without pissing them off too much that voting for you will be anathema.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Note that next time, the Tories won't be pushing a dementia tax, starving children, or killing foxes. And it won't be May leading them.
Next time the Labour party won't be trying to oust its popular leader and brand him unelectable. The Tories will struggle to make much play with any threats of coalitions of chaos and the media is going to struggle to play the same mantra about Corbyn being unelectable and useless.
Also maybe we won't have Scottish Labour telling people to vote Labour, she knows she can't remove Corbyn so maybe she will actually get on with her job of winning Labour seats now. Imagine the difference if we had Scottish Tories pushing a Labour vote!!
Which demographic will Labour win over next time? Look up the graph of how age group is the closest correlation with how a demographic votes, how the crossover point is at 35 or thereabouts, and how this has held true for decades. Remember that Corbyn is immensely popular with Labour members. That does not equal British voters.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Everyone and their dog can see how the Tory mistakes, at least those not relating to Brexit, can be rectified next time. Don't unnecessarily piss off older voters. Don't make it easy to portray the Tories as the nasty party. Get someone in who can face an audience with questions. None of which is particularly difficult (it was far harder to come up with the perfect :daisy:storm that May did). And that addresses to upper end of the spectrum and a fair bit of the rest. And they start as the largest party by more than 50 seats.
Elections are won in the centre. The crossover point is at 35.
Because it's not about Corbyn. It's about politics with some honesty and not just spin and expediency. About social democracy and not neo liberalism. Labour could have picked a better candidate - but the others were blairites. That means spin and neo liberalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
If May had turned up to both TV debates and said nothing about fox hunting I reckon they Tories would have gained 10-30 seats. It is by no means clear that support for Corbyn is deep among young people so much as broad.
It's also worth remembering that all these young people voting for him would be mostly too young to remember much of Castro or Chavez, and might not have been born before the IRA ceasefire. Thus far the Tories have treated Corbyn like something of a clown, not taken him seriously.
Now they will be going for him with knives and you can knock a lot of the veneer off an English Socialist by linking him to terrorists and tin-pot South American Dictators.
Nobody's asked him why he supported Castro whilst calling for Pinochet to be arrested yet.
Corbyn is not honest. He is, at best, self-deceptive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I would argue his popularity IS primarily personal because he has become a personal emblem of Socialism.
Yeah that is definitely the problem... the media didn't go after Corbyn hard enough... maybe the conservatives just weren't right wing enough. Double down and go again I say.
Didn't you argue earlier that Labour should double down on the youth vote? Probably because they'd be so disgusted with the DUP that the youth vote will count double next time.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
The Tories did a number of extraordinarily stupid things. Jaw-dropping stuff. Yet they have 318 MPs. It wouldn't take much to correct these mistakes; just some reasonably competent political operators. Labour will re-start from a lower level, but they've already pretty much squeezed the youth vote dry. This is the high point without moving for the centre. That means persuading the 30-50 demographic.
Technically, there is still another 25% of the youth vote that could be motivated to vote labour next election...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
just remember that not all leavers made brexit about immigration.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
my problems with immigration is not about immigration per-se, it's about a failure of integration caused by multi-culturalism.
that is [our] fault, not the EU's.
my reason - and that of the majority of leavers in Ashcroft's exit polls - was sovereignty.
Technically. But they're getting older, and historically people follow the demographic trends. Historically young people also don't vote. So will there be a reversion to mean? Meanwhile, there are some very easy things that the Tories can do to regain their vote in the higher age group. Which, let's not forget, outnumbers the lower age group. The Tories nearly have a majority, and they did quite a few astonishingly stupid things in the election. If they eliminate the obvious stupidities, they can easily get back up above the majority mark.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
It all goes back to the given wisdom that elections are won in the centre. If Labour want power, they need to look at the 30-50 demographic.
That could have been dealt with whilst still within the EU though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Would you be ok if we cancelled Brexit, but the Westminster government tightens up on existing powers as they're entitled to do, as various EU countries do?
May already starting to brief against her rivals, warning them she knows where the skeletons are buried. I think I can do without effective government for a while while I enjoy watching this spectacle. Not as enjoyable as 1997, but more amusing.
Much of this is true, but you overlook the fact that the "centre" in British politics is never set in stone. What constitutes the broad political consensus shifts all the time. Gay rights are fringe 40 years ago. Privatising the NHS also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The centre is changed by defining moments and elections. I am happy with this last result as it can't help but move certain policies into the consensus/centre.
Look, will you make an effort to read my posts instead of just wheeling out pat answers?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
This isn't about the Tories needing to be more "right-wing".
First off, "double down and go again" is Corbyn to Milliband, so pot kettle black there. The point I was making is that the Conservatives only made half-hearted attacks on Corbyn's record.
How much of the youth vote will come out for him once it gets wifely circulated that he was in bed with Holocaust deniers ten years ago?
Reported for obscene content. Need mind bleach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
I think the constant smears against him is part of what turns the youth vote off the Conservatives TBH, just promise not to tell Tory HQ!Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
TBH that sovereignty largely tended to be about full control of our borders from my (limited) experience but out of interest for you personally is there a solution which includes the single market, free movement of Labour and sovereignty?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Maybe it's simpler, Brits just don't apreciate the downright hostile tone of tbe scared cats in BrusselsQuote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
So Fragony would withdraw his leave vote in the UK if the EU were just a bit more respectful??
Does this take the form of something particular like control of over a certain set of policies?
I'll add that, in my experience, multiculturalism involving other Europeans has not been a problem. They're fairly close to us culturally, and they're willing to work to fit in. Problems mainly involve migrants from outside the EU. We can restrict migrants from selected countries outside the EU without it affecting existing EU agreements. There is quite a lot national governments can do within existing EU frameworks, which other countries do, but the UK does not.
Maybe next time Frag will vote Lib Dem or some other UK party that supports continued membership of the EU.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
In bed? You mean talking to people who have crazy and unpalatable views?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
And yet, like a true right winger, you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but fail to notice the beam in your own eye. The tories have numerous mps who come out with racist, hateful, bonkers stuff all the time. But as they are middle class white men you (and the media) don't find them problematic. The tories are in government with the DUP! THE DUP! And you don't engage with that at all? That's nothing?!
Well I can't. But you will have to wait very long for me to consider the EU anything other than hostile to me. They are because I completily disregard it's need to exist, they scream 'populists' if you are against the EU. Look the word up and why and whenQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The tabloids endlessly raked over supposed IRA/Sinn Féin links, it didn't do very much good and now that approach is pretty well buggered by the Tories sitting down to coalition talks with the organisers of Ulster Resistance - the ones who stole top secret arms from British factories to sell to gun runners from apartheid South Africa. So far as the average British voter of any age is concerned, all the Northern Irish politicos and paramilitaries are as bad as each other. Chavez is a hate figure only for people who are already on the political right anyway. More to the point, Blairism was successful in the 90s because back then, the capitalist system appeared to be working just fine and everyone was getting richer at (nearly) all levels of society. If you're an 18 year old first time voter now, the crash happened when you were nine. You have no meaningful recollection of those days: to you the system is and always has been broken, capitalism equals austerity and food banks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
But no, it wouldn't be cool to cancel Brexit if we sorted [that] problem, because [that] problem has literally no bearing on my vote to leave.
I do not care very much about immigration one way or the other, it isn't a trigger for my inner political animal. ;)
That wasn't what Ashcroft showed.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Yes, a legal undertaking to ensure the separation of the internal market from all of the social and fiscal legislation they will need to make the eurozone work**. In that circumstance, i'd be very happy to remain in EEA/Efta.
My vote to leave was in large part because the 'emergency' of eurozone incompetence was always trying to be fixed at the level of the EU28 as a 'single-market' matter.
If that is not possible, i'd be fine with something hung off the bones of the Ukraine DCFTA.
** Cameron secured this for Britain, in theory, and i'd have been content with that until Belgium insisted it only apply to Britain. In one move shafting the little countries and denying us a coalition to enforce the opt-out from QMV.
And McDonnell wants out of the single market, ie. hard Brexit. With the Tories lacking a majority, will Corbyn once more whip his MPs towards a hard Brexit, and will they obey with the prospect of stopping such in combination with Tory rebels?
I didn't vote Labour for the first time in my life, and if McDonnell is indicative of the direction Labour will take, I won't do so again for the foreseeable future.
We still haven't really addressed what a hard brexit actually is:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053750937
I've told you what my definition of a hard Brexit is. Is there any way in which McDonnell's wish does not qualify as a hard Brexit as per my definition?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
i never really got [why] you define not being in the single market and customs union to be a hard brexit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
yes, in the absence of anything else it would be bad economically, possibly bad enough to justify the term "hard brexit".
but why would we or should we presume that we would put nothing else in its place?
I still wonder why Philippus voted for the Lib Dems. I do have a theory, but it would be disappointing if that theory is true, so I am pondering alternatives.
i did too. ;)
I remember you saying years ago about voting Lib dem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Yes, the DUP are probably only one very small cut above Sinn Fein and Sinn Fein are, admittedly, good socialists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
What annoys me id Corbyn claiming he was trying to "promote dialogue" when in reality he was supporting one side specifically.
As to racist things MP's say - Labout has admitted to having a problem with anti-Semitism that extends up to the former London Mayor.
I'm a Whig, not a Tory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
It's not hard to work out - I enthusiastically supported the Coalition that brought the two sundered halves of the Whigs back together in the figures of Cameron and Clegg. I was willing and fairly happy to support Cameron as a Whig to moderate Tory. Theresa May, however, has shown herself to be something much worse than a Tory - a Thatcherite. Meanwhile, while I don't like Tim Farron he is at least a Liberal. So long as the Liberal wing of the Lib-Dems is in ascendancy I will probably continue to support them. Expect that to change sharpish if the Social Democrats take over.
Why are the DUP better than sinn fein? Sinn fein at least have a political cause. The DUP are just flat earthers, ex thug drug dealers and anti Catholic bigots.
The DUP are worth 10 votes. Sinn Fein are worth 0 votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
To be fair to May, she did warn of a coalition of chaos with terrorist sympathisers.
Where do you place Churchill in your political spectrum? That's Winston Spencer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Well, Chruchill wasn't entirely consistent politically. I suppose he was primarily a Unionist, which is why he flitted between Conservativism and Liberalism. He was also an Imperialist, though, which doesn't really translate into anything today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
www.whigs.ukQuote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
The fancy the symbol they used is a fox made me chuckle.
He and Lloyd George were at the forefront of reformist Liberalism, although Churchill is mainly known as a war leader today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
You don't actually believe the EU is immune from being damaged by brexit, do you? Ignoring the blow of losing the second largest of only 5 major net contributors to the EU he UK is a net importer of EU goods, any increase in tariffs and fees on European trade via brexit negotiations breaking down will have an impact on their economies as well as ours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmetiacos
Pot, kettle, black. Or do you call insults a height of intelligent discourse?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
That would explain a lot, though not why you think that intelligent people would be swayed by either obvious fool.
Those numbers are high, but irrelevant, the youth came out at 70% and labour still lost by a wide margin, it didn't win then and it wont win next time, even assuming they could repeat it. As for Canterbury you gain that seats by having a conservative party shoot itself in the face, why else would a 100 year Tory safe seat go red?
It is my personal impression but the relation to empirical evidence is only not presented, it's existence let alone orientation is not exhibited either way in either side of our discourse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Your assertion that it does not support me is your own personal impression.
1. I asserted that "a party in this situation that cannot achieve a majorty and has no possibility for a majority coalition is utterly incapable of ensuring the passing of any law or changing any policy that the first place position does not agree to without external influence."Quote:
You asserted that:
1. Only one result at a point in time has any meaning (i.e. Labor formal majority).
2. A "good" leader is able to achieve this regardless of context.
3. A leader is "bad" so long as this threshold is not met.
These are all wrong. The real test is whether and how Labour can expand its role in Parliament and local governments on the way to future elections.
If a minority party cannot gain 51% in a vote it's agenda will be stymied in any form of democracy that does not possess a filibuster rule. If a minority party cannot gain a coalition that raises their vote share to 51% they are incapable of assuming the status of government. When both happens a party is rendered ineffective.
Your assertion that "The more opportunities Labor has to influence policymaking in this government, the lower the benefits of a Tory government, and more MPs = more opportunities." is entirely addressed by my statement that it "requires both cooperation of all the other minor parties and/or the consent of a portion of the likely conservative-UNP coalition."
Labour's entire ability to alter policy is predicated upon the permission of others, it has no independent avenue of action.
2. No I didnt.
3. No I didnt.
I asserted that a bad leader, or more specifically this bad leader, negatively affects a party's ability to achieve either 51% necessary to wield effective power.
You conceive of political power only in terms of ability to pass a given piece of legislation through a legislature in the near-term, which misunderstands power in democracies. The existence and size of opposition parties limits the actions the governing Party can take, because this isn't about what someone "lets" anyone else have or do. Parliament is not about turn-taking. Parliament is a political institution dependent on the electorate and not a machine for churning out legislature that one actor can hold and wield in denial of others. Every action must run in some way through the approval and vetting of minority parties, to the extent that the less minority support a course of action or legislation has, the more of its power the majority or governing group must expend to secure it - and governments do not have unlimited quantities of this power, either in sheer extent or in some duration of time. Hence, priorities and expedience, i.e. politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
When you note something like
you have to grasp that this is the basis for your political system, it's the expectation and what all the participants are organized about. If it were not the case, all governments would translate to one-party states.Quote:
Labour's entire ability to alter policy is predicated upon the permission of everyone else
You took it that Corbyn's bad leadership is directly responsible for Labor's lack of a majority in this election. Corbyn could well be a bad leader, or even an acceptable but otherwise inconvenient leader, but you didn't have license to associate leadership from Corbyn, poor or otherwise, with overall election results. At least some of the issue is related to a fundamental misunderstanding, a zero-sum one, of how democracies work, which led you to perceive the election outcome for Labor as a bad one in the first place. What do you make of the proposition that it is categorically impossible for a party like the Liberal Democrats to not have bad leadership?Quote:
2. No I didnt.
3. No I didnt.
I asserted that a bad leader, or more specifically this bad leader, negatively affects a party's ability to achieve either necessary 51% to achieve effective power.
You will lot will love this, I did.
Sinn Fein are going to break tradition and have sent their MP's to London for Induction to break Parliament if the coalition between the Tories DUP goes through.
Source
No, according to your source they're sending their MP's to Parliament to register for Office space, as they always do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Still not taking their seats, still depriving the Irish people of a voice in Parliament.
UPDATED: 17:53, Tue, Jun 13, 2017Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
It changed.
Disappointing as the original was definitely more interesting political drama wise.
i would have loved it, because it meant we would have broken them on the wheel of british democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
but, ah well! next time. ;)
FWIW, the youth vote had an unusually heavy turnout this election, but it was still under 60%. The top age group was nearly 80%. And the latter outnumbers the 18-24ers, even disregarding turnout.
I didn't think there was an official way to know, secret ballot and the question not being asked at exit polls, rather they try to estimate it?
The figure I heard was 72% though.
I heard 72% as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Well, they are able to tell who voted because you confirm you are voting whether in poll station and they tick you off or via postal vote confirming with signature.
It is arguably possible you can find out who voted for what as the voting paper has a number which corresponds with you if you have access to the list which says who has what number.
One Cambridge academic was apparently batting the 72% figure around, from talking to SU presidents and others. He hasn't shared his workings yet.
It actually should be easy to work out at polling stations note the voter registration numbers - you should be able to track that back to individuals who register with their NI number, which will give you their age.
The 57/59% 18-24 figure is from yougov. IIRC Labour supporters have been talking up their polling since the election, so take their credibility on one with the other if you wish.
TBH yougov estimating it at 57/59% might explain why they were a bit out on their predictions compared to results, as opposed to the Cambridge academic, Labour supporter?, who I guess went of the results, although how he came to that figure is a good question....
Weren't yougov the ones who polled a late Labour surge and a hung parliament?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
I thought it was Survation who pretty much called it in the end?
Nope, Youguv - the guys who usually poll for Torygraph, among others.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
~60% is a big rise on the 43% for the last election two years ago.
Metro had a bit on this - apparently Labour DID capture the middle at age 35, and they got the educated vote, but they lost the working class vote and the elderly came out in droves for the Tories.
That suggests three things to me.
1. The "Dementia Tax" worried old people less than it worried the people who actually stood to lose out, their heirs.
2. Fox hunting probably turned off a lot of younger educated people, by which I mean under 40.
3. A lot of it was about Bexit, May's inflexible "Brexit means Brexit" and her insistence we must leave the Single Market with little to no intellectual nuance will have turned off a lot educated people.
So old people ruined the UK again.
ruined?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I know a few doctors and nurses at the local hospital. It's full of old people with chronic problems who are always complaining about having to wait, having operations delayed, etc. Ask them how they vote, and every time.. "conservative of course". The mind boggles.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Its not really surprising - having talked too a good many older people who support the Conservatives, most cite the 70's and the union strikes as why - if you can remember a time where the left failed badly you are less likely to give it a second shot.
My parents were also in this group, however they were dyed in the wool Liberal voters rather than Conservative, until this election where they both voted Labour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
It should be noted that, contrary to recent vicious rumours (spread by young people) that old people are not out to "ruin" the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Many of the older generation who voted Brexit did so in order to give their children or grandchildren a better life, because they don't expect to live to see the world get better for them. In this context you can see why the older generation keep voting Conservative, because as bad as things might be right now they've seen them be much worse under Labour. Given that the current Labour top-team were mostly union supporters during the 1970's it's unlikely many working in that period will vote for them because they remember the difference between the rhetoric from that period and reality.
The current generation have the opposite perspective, all they know is disappointment with the Conservatives.
If Grenfell Tower occurred last week, I think we would be looking at Labour majority. Conservatives have royally screwed up again, and Theresa May turning up for token appearance for cameras and zooming off is a joke. Especially compared to Jeremy Corbyn mingling with the "plebs" as the Tories call them.
I'm sorry, are the tories responsible for this fire now?
In what universe would a random disaster swing the election?
The fact they were sitting ontop of the report?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
The fact the massive amount of tories (Who are landlords) voted down safe housing legislation?
The fact Boris Johnson cut local fire stations?
Not a random disaster, it is brought about by Tory incompetence. Quite a number of them...