Oul wans and oul fellas who he was quite happy to see die, according to Dominic Cummings.
Leave vote would not win now because of demographics. Though the pensioners may not get their 8% as promised by the triple lock next year.
Many of whom he'd happily see die. It doesn't compute. Surely a stupid hairdo and a "we'll muddle on through it" attitude to governance aren't enough, right? Why has this latest reveal not destroyed him?
Johnson is a callous individual who cares about nobody only himself so nothing surprising about anything he comes out with. But the tories will always look after their own, as today's news about their plan to address social care shows.
They are going to raise the £10-12bn needed to cover it with a 1% increase in national insurance contributions. This means it will be younger, lower paid workers who will pay most. Nobody over 66 pays NI and earnings over £50k are only levied at 2%. Nearly 70% of over 65s voted tory in 2019 and they are 20% of the population and rising.
And they get to face the electorate bleating on about no income tax rises. As i said, the tories always look after their own.
I had a small look at the PDF of the data itself, and the generational thing is interesting: ranking only Likely Voters - and unless I'm grossly misreadhing the tables - there's quite the drop off of Conservative support with anyone under 50; a Cliff Edge, if you will 😉 Same too with Brexit, with a big disparity of support between those under and over 50. It's lopsided enough that the headline item doesn't really reflect the details here. Overall support might have increased, but it's not uniform support by any reasonable metric. The gap is lopsided; with younger demographics pushing back against Brexit & Tories, the older apparently entrenched through (maybe) Sunk Cost Bias? Now, famously, older people are more likely to vote so whether that'd manifest in something transformative at the polls is another matter - but "the UK loves the Tories, nothing to see here" doesn't quite wash either. As always, the devil is in the details.
That's all quite true. In 2017, for example, the pollsters all pretty much failed to call it by drastically missing the significance of the youth vote. The latest more sophisticated polling models are supposedly less prone to such gaps, but it can only ever remain an inexact science.
That said, i look at the political landscape in the uk at present and wonder what exactly is in it for younger voters, under 40ish let's say. Labour have made it patently clear it's mostly about the red wall for them, whatever it takes and everything else seems an afterthought right now. There's the greens, lib dems and various small parties and indos, but not exactly a richly gleaming choice of options, you'd have to say.
Well quite. That's the big question: the data clearly points towards a huge slice of the electorate dissatisfied with a Tory government, enough even for a different government, but in FPTP where's the alternative strong enough to sway them? So long as those harder older groups vote Tory enough, they'll act as kingmakers. All they have to keep faith in is that Everyone Else remains ideologically fragmented enough to ensure power; with Labour kinda all over the place and the rest eternally playing catch-up, it's probably how things will shake out for now.
Both main parties face a similar political dilemma. In pitching for one particular bank of the electorate - even within their own target zones on right or left - they inevitably risk alienating another set, kind of a zero sum game, just the tories tend to do it better and they have a clearer run on the right than Labour have on the other side.
So various groups such as young people, muslims and other minorities, end up feeling marginalised and taken for granted. The "they have nowhere else to go" principle. Well, they can always just decide to stay at home on polling day for a start!
"So various groups such as young people, muslims and other minorities, end up feeling marginalised and taken for granted. The "they have nowhere else to go" principle. Well, they can always just decide to stay at home on polling day for a start!"
I've posted an article here several times about the new Conservative strategy both in the US and the UK - prevent the opposition's electorate from voting (voter suppression) or convince them to stay at home. An example of the latter is spreading stories that the leader of the opposition is an anti-semite, trying to make the younger woke/culturally aware electorate disillusioned with their leader, enough to convince them not to bother voting.
Or rather then staying at home they can be listened to and not feel marginalized. Just a thought. I love how people want more people to go out and vote but only if it is for there side
Right, good thought that. The parties can actually address them, their worries and concerns and convince them they are not being taken for granted. Pretty much the point i was making, I would day!
I would prefer 100% of the electorate to vote but failing that I would prefer everyone over 65 and anyone prone to voting for Fianna Fáil to stay home.
That's extremely simplistic, not least because it ignores the realpolitik of FPTP - which negates the possibilities of single or local policy/interest parties and the demographics who might vote for them. Many constituencies effectively boil down to "well if I don't want a Tory, I HAVE to vote Labour" (and vice versa obviously); and that's going to be unpalatable for many a voter, no matter how enfranchised they may be. Plus if the alternative Hobson's Choice candidate appears functionally similar to the ruling party's own - why would you get out and cast a vote in the first place?
If we hadn't proportional representation, it's debatable Sinn Fein, Labour, the Greens and so on would ever have any kind of numbers in the Dail (removing one's personal opinions of that party for a second). Nevermind the metric tonne of independent TDs who bulk out the seats. Now, the structure of the Dail's ruleset is such that small parties struggle to even FIND a voice in the first place, but the principle of the voting system is, to my mind, sound and much more enfranchising to the voter than FPTP.
The point i was making here was chiefly in relation to the Labour party. In prioritising the red wall seats, which they are clearly doing, they are risking alienating their young progressive, minority base and the old assumption that these voters "have nowhere else to go" is a risky hat to hang on imo.
I don't have to imagine this because it is already happening. The party has lost in excess of 100,000 members over the past 18 months and that is going to keep increasing and put their finances in even greater peril.
So the question is where do these disillusioned voters go? Maybe they do stay loyal with nowhere else to go, maybe they go green or lib dem or, just possibly, they stay at home. That is an option for them. Which was my point.
I don't think Labour voters in London feel anyway alienated or left out due to the left wall talk. One reason for that is that local councils are so much stronger in the UK and most Labour voters know that your council becoming Tory means all your public funded facilities are about to get gutted. I don't know how it affects the swing voter as I honestly never met one in London.
I do think though that if the Tories did lose the next election it would be purely down to a vote against them rather than for an opposition. There are already signs that the blue Home Counties could be the next solid wall to crumble.
The 100k Labour voters lost is definitely a reaction to Corbyn stepping down and I would also imagine there are plenty of that 100k just like myself who stopped paying because I don't live there anymore (Its actually very hard to leave the Labour party as there is no simple leave option in the membership section online so the easiest way is to just cancel your DD).
Over 65 very ageist of you. But who would you have to blame then when it does not magically get better
No it isnt simplistic it is very hard work. It would involve people getting involved with stuff. Listening to each other (politicians and voter). It would also involve the voter actually have to think and take stock of there votes and not just blame others. In my estimation if you do not vote you can not voice a concern
And again, if the demographics are against you in Constituency X, all the newly engaged voters won't matter a jot in a 50%+1 FPTP system. Going double in a gerrymandered area. This is chicken and egg stuff; can't ask - or indeed blame - people to be more active if the structure then actively works against them. For sure voter apathy is a curse, but it can't be all pinned on personal responsibility when you get a Tory government with ~40% of the national vote.
Yeah, but what about all the local elections this year where the party has been bleeding, hemmorhaging, votes to the greens and lib dems? That doesn't necessarily translate to GE, but it is an alarming trend for them.
And despite Starmer pledging an end to labour "naval gazing", the latest is now a move to expel radical fringe groups who are largely made up of the types of radical young leftists Starmer once was himself in his youth. Just pointless stuff which I am certain will further alienate young voters just so as to show their preferred kind of voter how tough and serious they are.
The 100,000 figure is one they trot out, many believe it is a lot higher. And they are now broke and laughably blaming it on corbyn even though the latter was instrumental in reshaping the party's finances in the first place. Where are all the big corporate donors who backed Starmer for the leadership? Don't seem to be so keen now for some reason.
But who knows? These are political calculations they are making and evidently believe in them. I think it's disastrous but what do I know really?
Very ageist. Absolutely.
I have no qualms about the most cosseted in society having less input tbh.
I think the point is to get the 100,000 Trots out? :)
Ah, yeah. The same "trots" Starmer hoodwinked into backing him for the leadership by promising to be a unified and signing up to the 10 pledges which he has since spent the last 10 months reneging on one by one. More fool them.
Cummings interview on BBC from a couple of days ago.
Absolutely astonishing just how shambolic things are over there at the moment.
Never say never, but i suspect we may be nearing a tipping point on tory covid corruption. This guy didn't just buy a stately country estate (£1.5m worth) on the back of a £120m ppe contract that delivered 0.26% usable items, he bought a holiday home too as well as a house for his parents. Time for labour to take the gloves off, the anger over this is feral.
"i suspect we may be nearing a tipping point on tory covid corruption".
An 80 seat majority and no general election due until 2024? The tories will line the pockets of the Chumocracy until then with no-one to stop them.
If there is excessive heat in this particular instance (which I doubt), the man who has already been thrown overboard, Matt Hancock, can take the blame for it. (AKA The Dead Man Strategy).
And from a metaphorical Dead Man (Matt Hancock) to a literal one - an inquiry into the shenanigans around Greensill Capital found that the main person responsible was? A dead man, Jeremy Haywood.
His widow went on the BBC and "accused the inquiry of 'trying to set up my husband, as far as I can see, to divert attention from things which happened much later after he died'".
Polls aren't everything but for the first time the government is actually losing ground with voters. Latest You Gov findings have them down 6 points so it's not just one single outlier. That's following on from their recent pasting in Chesham & Amersham. So tipping point or not, the tide may be turning against them finally. This is almost certainly down to their handling of covid restrictions and let's see how worse it gets. Nobody is claiming this will have any immediate implications, but it likely does cancel out any remaining notions Johnson was harbouring of calling a snap election to capitalise on the vaccine bounce. That's all clearly past now.
Harsh words from the Financial Times.
Will it make any difference? Probably not, could well be one of those pieces they can point to in future to say they didn't shy away from such a story but truth be told, if they're not reporting on just who is involved and detailing their links to the government and their specific business interests then it is easily brushed off.
This will go over more heads.
Far more important things going on like PM having a baby, you know the important stuff in a democracy
The problem is that financial Times is a specialist publication as things go, so it's never going to drive the public itself. Also if their journalists know about it, it's likely that journalists for other publications with a wider audience know about it as well and haven't reported it. I know they haven't named anyone probably because they don't know the exact make up of board(as they admit themselves). A combination of British libel laws and my perception(which could be wrong) is that the FT is less likely to speculate on named on named individuals. Finally knowing that an advisory board like this exists(given the lack of minutes of meeting its fairly secretive) and knowing its make up are two different things. However it's existence is concerning and you'd hope that more mainstream media outlets would pick up on the story and start asking questions.
Rich Text Editor.
To edit a paragraph's style, hit tab to get to the paragraph menu. From there you will be able to pick one style. Nothing defaults to paragraph.
An inline formatting menu will show up when you select text. Hit tab to get into that menu.
Some elements, such as rich link embeds, images, loading indicators, and error messages may get inserted into the editor. You may navigate to these using the arrow keys inside of the editor and delete them with the delete or backspace key.