The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[blandy]

That's more like it.And it's as you mentioned - all about recapturing people they lost.

[HanoiVillan]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's more like it.And it's as you mentioned - all about recapturing people they lost.

I think we are perhaps talking somewhat at cross-purposes, but the point I'm making here is that Lib Dem voters *are* more similar to working age Conservatives (as discussed, there are proportionally fewer Lib Dem-voting pensioners) in that they are voters who are more economically secure. The idea that Labour 'lost among the working class' - I appreciate you're not saying that in those words, but it's important to be clear about this - isn't true, because the NRS grades do not show housing wealth and economic security among pensioners. Labour received substantially more votes than the Tories among working-age people who are economically insecure, exactly as we would expect.  Their problem is that those votes are not enough, on their own, due to the lower voting propensity of younger age groups.

I hope that Labour can win back a substantial number of lost voters, because it would certainly help, but it may be difficult to do so. Divorced from the working world, and expecting to die before global warming becomes a problem, retired voters can live off their pension and then their housing wealth and indulge themselves in meaningless culture war trivia. Hard for Labour to get those voters back.

[blandy]

Yes, it's like we're having 2 different discussions (discussions, not arguments). I understand (I think) what you're saying, but I'm not sure that the data really supports it. It could be me that's reading things wrong - I'm no expert.

It started with you mentioning "class" and Lib Dems and tory voters being more similar. My perception is that this isn't right and isn't relevant or true, as I said.

My perception is that Corbynite Labour was popular amongst Southern, educated, metropolitan people. Data suggests that is true. The same demographic also leans Lib Dem. Poorer, less educated folk - they leant Tory. That used to be a Labour demographic, but for 20 odd years that support has been waning.

So there's the politics of theory and and policy and all that, and my perception is that kind of politics has left a segment of society kind of out of the loop, it's done nothing for them that they recognise. So then they're open to messaging from anyone - UKIP, Tory, Labour, whoever that promises them something better. They used to, 40 years ago, despise tories, but the world's changed.

Asset rich but income poor pensioners are not "working class" - they're not working for a start - What even is working class any more? But they're as important as anyone and everyone else. If you tell any demographic "We're coming for your money", they are extremely unlikely to vote for you - Amongst low-income voters: Over 60s, Tories lead by 61% to 20%.

That's caveated in your tweets by an opinion that  Pensioners tend to be financially secure w/ generous pensions & homeownership. I don't know whether that opinion is correct, and suspect it isn't. "Generous pensions" tend to suggest not "low-income". In other words, that data seems to imply (for me) that there are other reasons poor/low-income pensioners reject labour - it may be innate small "c" conservatism, it may be/have been Corbyn's less that stellar performance on national security and Russia (Skripal etc.) and terrorism (IRA etc), I don't know, but suspect that older people will remember the IRA bombs and the Cold War and so on, and may form a view based around their lived experience, or even media prompting or tickling.

What I do know is that Labour is in a hole, the tories are more vile than ever and the lib dems are irrelevant at the moment. Perhaps (and there are signs) Starmer will climb labour out of that hole, the Country needs him to. I think parties need to offer "better" as their proposition. Your quoted tweets suggest that the tories do that and the Labour's are winners when people are scared. People should be scared because of the tories, IMO, but currently they're not. It's all backwards.

[snowychap]

5 hours ago, blandy said:

It isn't factually true that they have more in common with tories.

I'm not sure that HV made that claim in those terms.

[Graham t]

I think you will find that 'older' voters have experienced a succession of Labour governments some years ago and have learned from that experience.

Fortunately ( for them) younger voters have not had to endure this experience so are unaware of the pitfalls of voting labour.

ATB,

VLD.

[Seat68]

3 minutes ago, Graham t said:

I think you will find that 'older' voters have experienced a succession of Labour governments some years ago and have learned from that experience.

Fortunately ( for them) younger voters have not had to endure this experience so are unaware of the pitfalls of voting labour.

ATB,

VLD.

My parents say this. Which is fair. That ended in 79 though, 79! That would be like complaining about the pre war government from a position in the 70s. 

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, Graham t said:

I think you will find that 'older' voters have experienced a succession of Labour governments some years ago and have learned from that experience.

Fortunately ( for them) younger voters have not had to endure this experience so are unaware of the pitfalls of voting labour.

ATB,

VLD.

I think you’ll find older voters that saw their town and the people in it deliberately closed down for political dogma.

Vile vile tories tried to kill this town and these docks.

That’s my experience of tories, as an older more experienced voter. Scheming and vindictive.

 

[snowychap]

22 minutes ago, Graham t said:

I think you will find that 'older' voters have experienced a succession of Labour governments some years ago and have learned from that experience.

Please could you tell us when this succession occurred?

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Yes, it's like we're having 2 different discussions (discussions, not arguments). I understand (I think) what you're saying, but I'm not sure that the data really supports it. It could be me that's reading things wrong - I'm no expert.

It started with you mentioning "class" and Lib Dems and tory voters being more similar. My perception is that this isn't right and isn't relevant or true, as I said.

My perception is that Corbynite Labour was popular amongst Southern, educated, metropolitan people. Data suggests that is true. The same demographic also leans Lib Dem. Poorer, less educated folk - they leant Tory.

You are treating 'southern, educated [and] metropolitan' as in some way opposite to 'poor', but that is often not the case. Lots of people with degrees live in towns and cities and yet are asset and/or income poor (I know, I'm one of them). It's also the case that Labour has a wider appeal in urban areas, among minority voters, which may cut across this in different ways. Lib Dems are - broadly, again we are talking in generalities here - not asset and/or income poor. They are more likely than average to have above average incomes and to own their own home. As a result their class interests are more aligned with the class interests of typical conservative voters.

2 hours ago, blandy said:

In other words, that data seems to imply (for me) that there are other reasons poor/low-income pensioners reject labour - it may be innate small "c" conservatism, it may be/have been Corbyn's less that stellar performance on national security and Russia (Skripal etc.) and terrorism (IRA etc), I don't know, but suspect that older people will remember the IRA bombs and the Cold War and so on, and may form a view based around their lived experience, or even media prompting or tickling.

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with any of this. Of course voters change their minds from election to election, based on the issues and arguments of the day. I'm trying to address the broad generalities of the parties and their bases. While the voters shift constantly, the parties' coalitions remain largely the same.

[OutByEaster?]

I find with older people that they believe what they read in the papers. Newspapers have a great deal more bearing on older voters. 

 

[darrenm]

3 hours ago, Graham t said:

I think you will find that 'older' voters have experienced a succession of Labour governments some years ago and have learned from that experience.

Fortunately ( for them) younger voters have not had to endure this experience so are unaware of the pitfalls of voting labour.

ATB,

VLD.

I kept hearing this so asked my parents what the 70s was like. "Absolutely fine" for them. The 3 day weeks and power cuts of the 70s get apparently blown out of all proportion and aren't really any kind of comparison to the problems caused by the Tory govs of the 2010s. Also, the power cuts and 3 day weeks get blamed on the Labour gov but were apparently happening during the Heath Tory gov.

[colhint]

You can't be serious on this can you?  

[bickster]

6 hours ago, colhint said:

You can't be serious on this can you?  

Oh he is. There is a whole generation of brainwashed people like this, the only real succession of Labour governments since the war happened under Blair

Love him or loathe him, the country as a whole was generally more prosperous at the end of his tenure than at the start.

I mean look at the carnage the Tories have presided over in their time in their many successive governments

These people also believe it when the Tories say they are the party of low taxation, it's utter horseshit not backed up by any analysis

[Follyfoot]

After the embarrassment of black Wednesday, Ken Clarke led the country on a period of  growth and low inflation handing Blair an economy starting to flourish. 

[chrisp65]

9 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

After the embarrassment of black Wednesday, Ken Clarke led the country on a period of  growth and low inflation handing Blair an economy starting to flourish. 

The ‘embarrassment’?

That’ll be the embarrassment where lots of my friends lost their jobs and two close friends lost their homes? It put people on the dole and it put married men back to living with their parents.

It was an economic and social disaster. That was then ‘paid for’ by slashing health service jobs and privatising sections of the health service that could be run at an easy profit. It saw the rise of leeches like Capita who saw an opportunity for unearned profits on the backs of others by delivering ‘service’ far inferior to the previous model.

It was where the tories discovered the potential of disaster capitalism. Yes, they flushed huge parts of the economy down the toilet, but strangely, they did alright out of it. All those advisory positions on the boards of the companies that moved in to make profit in what used to be state jobs.

I know that from personal lived experience. Some people made plenty, plenty had it worse. 

 

 

 

[bickster]

28 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

After the embarrassment of black Wednesday, Ken Clarke led the country on a period of  growth and low inflation handing Blair an economy starting to flourish. 

Are you trying to make a valid point? If you are, you've utterly failed

[tonyh29]

11 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I find with older people that they believe what they read in the papers. Newspapers have a great deal more bearing on older voters. 

 

Just a follow up on this point , but I think it was NV that posted something from Twitter the other day that he later acknowledged he hadn’t fact checked and had believed was true ?  Luckily someone was on hand to point this out  

Doesn’t mean your point cant be  true , but this  notion of old (Daily Mail presumably )readers  being hoodwinked whilst the younger generations  get informed of the truth via Twitter isn’t a valid view imo.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2020 by tonyh29

[bickster]

6 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Just a follow up on this point , but I think it was NV that posted something from Twitter the other day that he later acknowledged he hadn’t fact checked and had believed was true ?  Luckily someone was on hand to point this out  

Doesn’t mean your point cant be  true , but this  notion of old (Daily Mail presumably )readers  being hoodwinked whilst the younger generations  get informed of the truth via Twitter isn’t a valid view imo.

 

 

You are the only person adding these souces to the discusiion

The point wasn't about the Mail vs Twitter.

The point was actually about older people believing what they read in newspapers, whilst younger people are more likely to check the facts of a story.

I think there's a small element of truth in it but I also think huge swathes (by far the majority) don't check facts at all, regardless of the generation they are from

[Follyfoot]

49 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

The ‘embarrassment’?

That’ll be the embarrassment where lots of my friends lost their jobs and two close friends lost their homes? It put people on the dole and it put married men back to living with their parents.

It was an economic and social disaster. That was then ‘paid for’ by slashing health service jobs and privatising sections of the health service that could be run at an easy profit. It saw the rise of leeches like Capita who saw an opportunity for unearned profits on the backs of others by delivering ‘service’ far inferior to the previous model.

It was where the tories discovered the potential of disaster capitalism. Yes, they flushed huge parts of the economy down the toilet, but strangely, they did alright out of it. All those advisory positions on the boards of the companies that moved in to make profit in what used to be state jobs.

I know that from personal lived experience. Some people made plenty, plenty had it worse. 

 

 

 

Forgive me for not getting emotional about anecdotal characters I don’t know.

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

You are the only person adding these souces to the discusiion

The point wasn't about the Mail vs Twitter.

The point was actually about older people believing what they read in newspapers, whilst younger people are more likely to check the facts of a story.

I think there's a small element of truth in it but I also think huge swathes (by far the majority) don't check facts at all, regardless of the generation they are from

I put presumably in brackets for the Mail as it’s VT’s chosen media of insult.. I used twitter as it was an Actual example to highlight why I felt the post wasn’t accurate .

the  point of my post was exactly that younger people are NOT more likely to check the facts of the story .... To claim otherwise is frankly wrong .  I’m just checking out of the hotel ( brand name is available if you’d prefer it snowy   ) but I’m sure later we can continue if desired .

Edited August 9, 2020 by tonyh29
Edit - reworded a sentence