thetop
Labour
[k4r]
Posts: 945
|
Post by thetop on Aug 5, 2017 16:19:51 GMT
Except of course middle aged people are becoming old people all the time. it's been going on for years. In 1975 the then argument was that the "young" were very much in favour of staying in the EC whilst it was the older generation who was opposed. Those voting in 1975 are now either of pensionable age or approaching it. I believe a large proportion of those "young" voters have changed their minds (possibly more than once) over the years as a result of their varied experiences. The same may, or may not, happen with today's youngsters. Except we weren't talking about support for the EU, we were talking about potential Tory landslides, and on every indicator Thatcherism had more to say to the youth of the 1970's (so born in the 50's) than they have to anyone born in the 1980's or later (who are very much the losers of said legacy), hence the age-based polarisation. |
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Aug 5, 2017 16:25:15 GMT
In 1975 the then argument was that the "young" were very much in favour of staying in the EC whilst it was the older generation who was opposed. Those voting in 1975 are now either of pensionable age or approaching it. I believe a large proportion of those "young" voters have changed their minds (possibly more than once) over the years as a result of their varied experiences. The same may, or may not, happen with today's youngsters. Except we weren't talking about support for the EU, we were talking about potential Tory landslides, and on every indicator Thatcherism had more to say to the youth of the 1970's (so born in the 50's) than they have to anyone born in the 1980's or later (who are very much the losers of said legacy), hence the age-based polarisation. I think if you were to look who has pulled up the ladders after themselves you will find all parties have their prints on the rungs. |
|
thetop
Labour
[k4r]
Posts: 945
|
Post by thetop on Aug 5, 2017 16:31:20 GMT
Except we weren't talking about support for the EU, we were talking about potential Tory landslides, and on every indicator Thatcherism had more to say to the youth of the 1970's (so born in the 50's) than they have to anyone born in the 1980's or later (who are very much the losers of said legacy), hence the age-based polarisation. I think if you were to look who has pulled up the ladders after themselves you will find all parties have their prints on the rungs. My point was that on a number of crisis plaguing the youth (housing, cost of living, poverty wages, university fees) any party sticking to the Thatcherite philosophy of letting the market rip will be hampered to attract support from them, whether now or in decades. It's of course possible the Tories could jettison such thinking, but as May has shown, there's limits to what the broader Conservative movement will allow. |
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Aug 5, 2017 18:45:33 GMT
I think if you were to look who has pulled up the ladders after themselves you will find all parties have their prints on the rungs. My point was that on a number of crisis plaguing the youth (housing, cost of living, poverty wages, university fees) any party sticking to the Thatcherite philosophy of letting the market rip will be hampered to attract support from them, whether now or in decades. It's of course possible the Tories could jettison such thinking, but as May has shown, there's limits to what the broader Conservative movement will allow. I notice, without being condescending, that you were barely out of nappies when Margaret Thatcher ceased to be Prime Minister whilst Tony Blair was almost half-way through his premiership when you became a teenager and had a first inkling of what real life is about. The issues you talk about have existed for many, many a year, well before I was your current age. In 1966 there was a play on TV called "Kathy Come Home" about homelessness and around the same time Shelter was founded. This was still the time of slum clearance but unfortunately these earlier slums were replaced by tower blocks etc which have not always stood the test of time. There is a problem in that we have not built sufficient houses in recent years to meet the demand from an increasing population but you cannot place the blame on a government from 30 years ago for that. In the early 1970's I rented a two bedroom house for £40 / £45 a month, equivalent to a little over £500 to £575 at today's money. A quick search of Rightmove shows, in my nearest city, equivalent properties today are around £600 / £650 a month, so not vastly different. In 1975 RPI inflation hit 24.9%. We are living through a period where the cost of living has been benign and very stable. The national minimum wage today gives a little over £280 gross for a 37½ hour week or £300 for a 40 hour week. My father was an apprenticed trained engineer who had to work 48 hours a week to earn a similar amount at today's money shortly before he died in the late 1960's. Poverty wages come tripping off the tongue but there was more then there is now. And finally tuition fees. I was fortunate enough to go the University in the mid 1960's when less than 5% of the age group went. We had maintenance grants, maximum some £320 a year, but they were means tested on your parent's income and only a few of us got the full grant with many more the minimum of £50. There were no tuition fees but these were introduced by Tony Blair and it was Gordon Brown who set up the Browne commission which recommended an increase on the then maximum rate of £3k a year. I believe most people today recognise that people benefitting from Higher Education should make a contribution either through fees or a graduate tax. Indeed when I was at University 50 years ago the Guardian floated some such suggestion as a means of funding the then proposed expansion. So what you call the Thatcherite philosophy has been followed by Government's of various political persuasions for over several decades. It has been a response to the problems inherited from the 1960's and 1970's if not before. It is not surprising that those who have lived through power-cut rotas, rubbish piling up in the streets and occasions of the dead not being able to buried because of industrial action are sceptical of the proposed somewhat simplistic solutions to the current issues. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Aug 5, 2017 20:38:06 GMT
Labour HOLD in Shelthorpe, Charnwood. Labour GAIN over UKIP in Margate Central, Thanet.Which means that Thanet goes from UKIP control to NOC. What a shame. But I'll get over it.  |
|
thetop
Labour
[k4r]
Posts: 945
|
Post by thetop on Aug 5, 2017 20:40:21 GMT
My point was that on a number of crisis plaguing the youth (housing, cost of living, poverty wages, university fees) any party sticking to the Thatcherite philosophy of letting the market rip will be hampered to attract support from them, whether now or in decades. It's of course possible the Tories could jettison such thinking, but as May has shown, there's limits to what the broader Conservative movement will allow. I notice, without being condescending, that you were barely out of nappies when Margaret Thatcher ceased to be Prime Minister whilst Tony Blair was almost half-way through his premiership when you became a teenager and had a first inkling of what real life is about. The issues you talk about have existed for many, many a year, well before I was your current age. In 1966 there was a play on TV called "Kathy Come Home" about homelessness and around the same time Shelter was founded. This was still the time of slum clearance but unfortunately these earlier slums were replaced by tower blocks etc which have not always stood the test of time. There is a problem in that we have not built sufficient houses in recent years to meet the demand from an increasing population but you cannot place the blame on a government from 30 years ago for that. In the early 1970's I rented a two bedroom house for £40 / £45 a month, equivalent to a little over £500 to £575 at today's money. A quick search of Rightmove shows, in my nearest city, equivalent properties today are around £600 / £650 a month, so not vastly different. In 1975 RPI inflation hit 24.9%. We are living through a period where the cost of living has been benign and very stable. The national minimum wage today gives a little over £280 gross for a 37½ hour week or £300 for a 40 hour week. My father was an apprenticed trained engineer who had to work 48 hours a week to earn a similar amount at today's money shortly before he died in the late 1960's. Poverty wages come tripping off the tongue but there was more then there is now. And finally tuition fees. I was fortunate enough to go the University in the mid 1960's when less than 5% of the age group went. We had maintenance grants, maximum some £320 a year, but they were means tested on your parent's income and only a few of us got the full grant with many more the minimum of £50. There were no tuition fees but these were introduced by Tony Blair and it was Gordon Brown who set up the Browne commission which recommended an increase on the then maximum rate of £3k a year. I believe most people today recognise that people benefitting from Higher Education should make a contribution either through fees or a graduate tax. Indeed when I was at University 50 years ago the Guardian floated some such suggestion as a means of funding the then proposed expansion. So what you call the Thatcherite philosophy has been followed by Government's of various political persuasions for over several decades. It has been a response to the problems inherited from the 1960's and 1970's if not before. It is not surprising that those who have lived through power-cut rotas, rubbish piling up in the streets and occasions of the dead not being able to buried because of industrial action are sceptical of the proposed somewhat simplistic solutions to the current issues. I notice, without being condescending, you've spent the last 5 paragraphs cleverly dancing around my point that clearly comes as inconvenient to you: material conditions have changed for those young in the seventies to those young today, and market (non)solutions are not a vote winner. No-one even bothers denying housing has grown increasingly unaffordable for the young and disingenuous comparisons of similar rent (I note even in your example that is still nearly one fifth cheaper and home-ownership was still easily attainable for your generation) or similar wages (that ignores the dirt cheap house prices) will disguise that. The facts on the ground are a collapse in property ownership and an average rent twice the European average. As for any public consensus on tuition fees, I note Corbyn's policy of scrapping them won 49% of public support when polled and was attributed to Labour's strong performance in the election; either way, what better way to show why the market offers little attraction than witnessing their ballooning into the highest tuition fees in the world. You can of course point to Winter of Discontent and oil crises' that led to the rise of monetarism but you're ignoring what we're talking about - pensioners are strongly Tory anyway, we're talking about the young who have their own experiences of how the market has delivered for them. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Aug 5, 2017 21:40:03 GMT
I notice, without being condescending, that you were barely out of nappies when Margaret Thatcher ceased to be Prime Minister whilst Tony Blair was almost half-way through his premiership when you became a teenager and had a first inkling of what real life is about. The issues you talk about have existed for many, many a year, well before I was your current age If we are playing the age card, I can note you in turn were barely out of nappies when I was at university! So I have a perspective which goes back to the Attlee government and then covers all the years you survey and I would concur with much of what you say about those years, except to add 1. There were years of hope in the late 40s which we have never seen since. That is not to say that some of the seeds of what later went wrong were not being sown in those years. 2. There was something uniquely awful about Thatcherism, and unlike you I recognise that term and the damage it did. But yes indeed, Blair and Brown inherited the Thatcher mould and built on it and you quote good examples 3. Some current leftists are indeed looking back to the postwar Labour government as their inspiration. If they get the chance to put that into practice they will no doubt sow the seeds pf destruction for another generation. What goes round.... |
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Aug 5, 2017 22:28:12 GMT
I notice, without being condescending, that you were barely out of nappies when Margaret Thatcher ceased to be Prime Minister whilst Tony Blair was almost half-way through his premiership when you became a teenager and had a first inkling of what real life is about. The issues you talk about have existed for many, many a year, well before I was your current age. In 1966 there was a play on TV called "Kathy Come Home" about homelessness and around the same time Shelter was founded. This was still the time of slum clearance but unfortunately these earlier slums were replaced by tower blocks etc which have not always stood the test of time. There is a problem in that we have not built sufficient houses in recent years to meet the demand from an increasing population but you cannot place the blame on a government from 30 years ago for that. In the early 1970's I rented a two bedroom house for £40 / £45 a month, equivalent to a little over £500 to £575 at today's money. A quick search of Rightmove shows, in my nearest city, equivalent properties today are around £600 / £650 a month, so not vastly different. In 1975 RPI inflation hit 24.9%. We are living through a period where the cost of living has been benign and very stable. The national minimum wage today gives a little over £280 gross for a 37½ hour week or £300 for a 40 hour week. My father was an apprenticed trained engineer who had to work 48 hours a week to earn a similar amount at today's money shortly before he died in the late 1960's. Poverty wages come tripping off the tongue but there was more then there is now. And finally tuition fees. I was fortunate enough to go the University in the mid 1960's when less than 5% of the age group went. We had maintenance grants, maximum some £320 a year, but they were means tested on your parent's income and only a few of us got the full grant with many more the minimum of £50. There were no tuition fees but these were introduced by Tony Blair and it was Gordon Brown who set up the Browne commission which recommended an increase on the then maximum rate of £3k a year. I believe most people today recognise that people benefitting from Higher Education should make a contribution either through fees or a graduate tax. Indeed when I was at University 50 years ago the Guardian floated some such suggestion as a means of funding the then proposed expansion. So what you call the Thatcherite philosophy has been followed by Government's of various political persuasions for over several decades. It has been a response to the problems inherited from the 1960's and 1970's if not before. It is not surprising that those who have lived through power-cut rotas, rubbish piling up in the streets and occasions of the dead not being able to buried because of industrial action are sceptical of the proposed somewhat simplistic solutions to the current issues. I notice, without being condescending, you've spent the last 5 paragraphs cleverly dancing around my point that clearly comes as inconvenient to you: material conditions have changed for those young in the seventies to those young today, and market (non)solutions are not a vote winner. No-one even bothers denying housing has grown increasingly unaffordable for the young and disingenuous comparisons of similar rent (I note even in your example that is still nearly one fifth cheaper and home-ownership was still easily attainable for your generation) or similar wages (that ignores the dirt cheap house prices) will disguise that. The facts on the ground are a collapse in property ownership and an average rent twice the European average. As for any public consensus on tuition fees, I note Corbyn's policy of scrapping them won 49% of public support when polled and was attributed to Labour's strong performance in the election; either way, what better way to show why the market offers little attraction than witnessing their ballooning into the highest tuition fees in the world. You can of course point to Winter of Discontent and oil crises' that led to the rise of monetarism but you're ignoring what we're talking about - pensioners are strongly Tory anyway, we're talking about the young who have their own experiences of how the market has delivered for them. I did say earlier this evening that if you looked who had pulled up the ladders after themselves you will find all parties have their prints on the rungs. I realise that being young has its difficulties but those of today should not underestimate what previous generations have had to go through, particularly my parents who were married shortly before the outbreak of World War II. I bought my first house when I was approaching 30 when many of my contemporaries were still renting although most are now owners; in terms of your age cohort graph today around 35% of the population have already done so by 30 which, although a little lower than in the recent past, is recoverable given increased longevity. In terms of rent, the European average includes all of the former Eastern bloc countries which distort the figures. The UK according to this analysis is some 50% higher than Germany, but this does not take into account our old friend "mix". Without wishing to be particularly political, I am not sure whether anyone really knew / knows what the Labour policy on tuition fees was / is. In any case, we can all say we want loads of jam today but unless you have policies for increasing the supply of jam you will quickly run into shortages and eventual rationing. Shortly after I left University, it was racked by student demonstrations / sit-ins / break-ins etc. We thought we were being treated badly and in some respects we were. But then life became very much more difficult with soaring inflation, increasing unemployment and government intervention ultimately making things worse. Today virtually anyone can go to University if they so want (at a cost), there are houses to buy and rent (at a price), world poverty is on a strong downward trend, longevity is increasing whilst childhood mortality is falling. There are challenges as there always are and always will be. One is population growth. If climate change is man-made, then part of the solution is to ensure the numbers generating whatever is contributing to it is under effective control. What is better, to have growth of 2% with a stable population or growth of 3% with an annual increase of 2% in the population. If the population is growing by 2% per annum then how can you tackle the undoubted problems there, beit in health, social services, education, policing etc, etc. Anyone who believes that market solutions have no part to play in addressing any or some of these issues cannot have had the responsibility of meeting head on the issue of managing change in a complex world. And so to bed. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Aug 6, 2017 8:24:52 GMT
Back to the issue of Labour winning in Worthing and Margate (after all this thread was once about the local by-elections of the week) They are an indication that Labour is doing particularly well in this sort of area -seaside towns, rather down at heel (in spite of some important new developments) which were Tory in their heyday,then Lib Dem leaning , then UKIP, now trending Labour. Wait for Clacton to go Labour any time soon.
To some extent this is the result of in-migration and a changing demographic, partly the original population working through all their choices in their despair.Either way they are a peculiar type of location and not typical of the rest of the country and it would be reckless (to bring up an appropriate name) to make any grand forecasts of a Labour landslide from them any more than you could previously forecast a Lib Dem or UKIP landslide from good results in the same areas. The fact that such areas are now trending Labour might indeed give Labour ten or a dozen seats at the next general election they might not otherwise expect to win, but its not in itself landslide territory.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,952
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 6, 2017 8:43:52 GMT
I'm not going to claim that such places are typical of everywhere, but there was a tendency after the GE for some pundits to dwell at length on the once pro-Labour areas that had moved away from them whilst almost ignoring places that were clearly going the other way (over and above the more general trend in both cases)
To form a government next time, even get a small majority, Labour won't "have" to win some seats that they did in the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by jigger on Aug 6, 2017 10:03:51 GMT
It is quite patently ridiculous to suggest that that there will never again be a Labour or a Conservative landslide, as posited above. There is simply not a scrap of evidence to support either assertion and anyone who makes them in the face of all the evidence is worthy of ridicule.
Let's start with the Conservatives:
1) we have just had virtually a year of polling (from when Theresa May became Prime Minister to just a few weeks before the General election) where the Conservatives pretty much consistently led Labour by double-digit landslide style 12-18 points in the opinion polls. And it is clear that these polls were roughly in the right ball-park as evidenced by the Copeland by-election and the Conservatives crushing Labour in the local elections in May.
2) In the General election just gone, the Conservatives got a higher share of the vote than they did in their 1987 election landslide and virtually the exact same percentage of the vote than in their 1983 landslide. It is self-explanatory that if the Conservatives have just got a higher share of the vote (after running what will surely go done in history as one of the worst campaigns ever) than in their 1987 landslide, then it remains not only possible but probable that there will be a Conservative landslide in the future.
Moving on to Labour:
1) Labour have just received pretty much the exact same vote share (it was slightly less) than they got in their 2001 landslide. Ergo, a landslide still remains possible for Labour.
2) Labour consistently led the Conservatives by double-digit leads in the opinion polls as recently as 2012-14. We can be less sure that these were right given in the 2015 election poll error, but given the very convincing way that Labour beat the Conservatives in the Corby by election and their impressive 2012 local election results, it is clear that Labour were well ahead at that period.
I am making no predictions about when precisely we will next a Conservative or Labour landslide. But what I will predict extremely confidently is that in the next 30 years we will have at least 1 and probably 2 Conservative and Labour landslides respectively
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Aug 6, 2017 10:21:41 GMT
It's tempting to think that. After all, Labour's 3 spectacular results on Thursday were all in places by or close to the sea. But look at the 2 previous weeks' council by-elections. Labour's 3 most spectacular results were in an inland, hilly small market town in Cumbria (although, granted, that had also been won by the party in May), a former textile town turned financial services town in the Staffordshire moors, almost as far from the sea as you can get in England, and a near-miss by 3 votes in an inland market town in Dorset with almost no Labour tradition (even in 1945 that constituency voted Liberal, not Labour). Clearly there are some parts of the country where Labour isn't doing quite as well as that, but it isn't simply a seaside phenomenon. The Tories are doing quite poorly in a pretty wide variety of locations at the moment, even if they are just council by-elections. To clarify, I was not saying that Labour are not doing well in all sorts of locations,and nothing I said implied this was just a seaside phenomenon, merely that extrapolating purely on the basis of the rather peculiar case of the seaside seats would be misleading. There are places where Labour are not doing so well and some of those are in their traditional heartlands, but if they can at least hang on to these then yes we could be into a landslide. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Aug 7, 2017 11:26:04 GMT
It's tempting to think that. After all, Labour's 3 spectacular results on Thursday were all in places by or close to the sea. But look at the 2 previous weeks' council by-elections. Labour's 3 most spectacular results were in an inland, hilly small market town in Cumbria (although, granted, that had also been won by the party in May), a former textile town turned financial services town in the Staffordshire moors, almost as far from the sea as you can get in England, and a near-miss by 3 votes in an inland market town in Dorset with almost no Labour tradition (even in 1945 that constituency voted Liberal, not Labour). Clearly there are some parts of the country where Labour isn't doing quite as well as that, but it isn't simply a seaside phenomenon. The Tories are doing quite poorly in a pretty wide variety of locations at the moment, even if they are just council by-elections. To clarify, I was not saying that Labour are not doing well in all sorts of locations,and nothing I said implied this was just a seaside phenomenon, merely that extrapolating purely on the basis of the rather peculiar case of the seaside seats would be misleading. There are places where Labour are not doing so well and some of those are in their traditional heartlands, but if they can at least hang on to these then yes we could be into a landslide. Hm.. I think people are underestimating how hard it is for Labour to get a majority, let alone a landslide..There is no sign that Labour are going to poll above 45% at the moment, and in those circumstances they need some other Party to rise up and take mainly Tory votes. Currently the Tory % is shored up by Brexit supporters (and Corbyn-haters; contrary to some opinion there are still plenty of them around). The only circumstances for a Labour landslide I see would be the Tories going "soft" on Brexit and losing votes to a rejuvenated UKIP, but UKIP would need to be above 15% I would think... |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,952
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 7, 2017 14:12:35 GMT
That is assuming a basically even nationwide swing.
Labour now have little room for improvement in many of their safe seats, so the likelihood is that any further advance on their June result will be concentrated elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Aug 8, 2017 8:15:03 GMT
That is assuming a basically even nationwide swing. Labour now have little room for improvement in many of their safe seats, so the likelihood is that any further advance on their June result will be concentrated elsewhere. I think that is wishful thinking! There are plenty of Tory votes in safe Labour seats like Huddersfield and the Sunderland seats. Votes will also pile up in the marginals won in 2017 if there is a further swing to Labour. To get a landslide in a two Party election Labour need to be winning seats like Macclesfield where the Tories have never got less than 47%. However I am sure Labour would be happy to get an overall majority, and taking Macclesfield next time will not be top of the priority list! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Aug 8, 2017 8:18:06 GMT
Meanwhile I would just remind Labour supporters not to fall into the Lib Dem trap of extrapolating big swings in local by-elections onto General Election voting intention!
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,952
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 8, 2017 10:48:59 GMT
That is assuming a basically even nationwide swing. Labour now have little room for improvement in many of their safe seats, so the likelihood is that any further advance on their June result will be concentrated elsewhere. I think that is wishful thinking! There are plenty of Tory votes in safe Labour seats like Huddersfield and the Sunderland seats. Votes will also pile up in the marginals won in 2017 if there is a further swing to Labour. To get a landslide in a two Party election Labour need to be winning seats like Macclesfield where the Tories have never got less than 47%. However I am sure Labour would be happy to get an overall majority, and taking Macclesfield next time will not be top of the priority list! Though it practice it wouldn't work like that, other supposedly "safer" (but in reality more volatile) Tory seats would go first. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 8, 2017 19:05:07 GMT
That is assuming a basically even nationwide swing. Labour now have little room for improvement in many of their safe seats, so the likelihood is that any further advance on their June result will be concentrated elsewhere. I think that is wishful thinking! There are plenty of Tory votes in safe Labour seats like Huddersfield and the Sunderland seats. Votes will also pile up in the marginals won in 2017 if there is a further swing to Labour. To get a landslide in a two Party election Labour need to be winning seats like Macclesfield where the Tories have never got less than 47%. However I am sure Labour would be happy to get an overall majority, and taking Macclesfield next time will not be top of the priority list! Obviously those weren't the safe seats being referred to, but I don't think it matters. The voters we didn't win but could in places like Huddersfield look exactly like the voters we could win in classic marginal seats. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Aug 8, 2017 19:29:41 GMT
I think that is wishful thinking! There are plenty of Tory votes in safe Labour seats like Huddersfield and the Sunderland seats. Votes will also pile up in the marginals won in 2017 if there is a further swing to Labour. To get a landslide in a two Party election Labour need to be winning seats like Macclesfield where the Tories have never got less than 47%. However I am sure Labour would be happy to get an overall majority, and taking Macclesfield next time will not be top of the priority list! Obviously those weren't the safe seats being referred to, but I don't think it matters. The voters we didn't win but could in places like Huddersfield look exactly like the voters we could win in classic marginal seats. I agree, but the argument was about whether some sort of variable swing would allow Labour votes to pile up just where they need they to get a landslide, while not increasing in some heartland seats, and I was just pointing out that the vast majority of Labour-held seats do in fact have substantial Tory votes, with plenty of scope for the Labour vote to increase further. I do remember convincing myself that the Ashcroft polls in places like Eastbourne in 2015 must be correct because the Lib Dem vote holding up there would be compensated by it going down much more in places like Pudsey.. So I am a bit cautious about such arguments.. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Aug 8, 2017 19:59:46 GMT
However, there are a much larger than normal percentage of seats where, absent large turnout increases, we must be effectively maxed out. That may mean it's harder to add on extra support (and personally I suspect that this is probably the case, absent a tweak in our presentation) but it does mean any such extra support would be more efficient than the norm. A long way from perfectly efficient, but you never get perfect efficiency with a rising vote.
|
|
