calodo2003
Flaming Full Member
This seems rather bereft of common sense.Common sense is not common & British people love to suffer*
*I don't have a credible answer, nothing makes sense.
This seems rather bereft of common sense.Common sense is not common & British people love to suffer*
*I don't have a credible answer, nothing makes sense.
My only guess is something to do with the vaccine?
To make a larger point, due to many historic reasons, there are large generational gaps in homeownership and wealth in the UK. Hence, the "working class" is (or, at least under Corbyn, was) divided quite sharply by age. A retiree with a private house, even a modest one, has very different material interests and concerns than somebody who works 40 hrs a week and rents.
No the real awakening in 'red wall' areas was that for all the years Labour was in power, both locally and nationally very little was done to improve the economic climate in these areas. Yes, there were lots of Government schemes but when the money ran out the schemes collapsed, no real investment was made, but lots of it wasted to buy short term popularity. In red wall areas it was worse, Labour was so sure of the vote in these areas, they hardly made any effort at all.
Social class is officially categorised and Labour have been losing ground in the C, D and E groups for years. i.e the working classes and their traditional voter base.
There are other, older, (in my view, more instructive) ways of looking at class.
Voting differences between those officially designated classes aren't nearly as wide as differences between young/old or retired/non-retired.
In 2017, Labour's worst class (AB) is -8. Their best (DE) is +3. A 11 point gap. In 2019, Labour's worst class was C2 (-15) and best was C1 (-9). A 6-point gap. There just isn't much explanatory power here for 2 reasons - the largest gap is between C1 and C2, the 2 classes closest on this official categorisation, and the identity of which "class" group does best for which party changes so completely between elections. It shows there are other underlying factors at work.
By contrast, 2017 Labour is - 39 among retirees and +45 among students. A 84-point gap. In 2019, Labour is -45 among retirees and +39 among students, another 84 point gap. Not just are the margins so much bigger, the identity of the group most loyal to a given party is also constant. You will get similar results with retirees vs workers or young vs old.
When will the mayor race be called?
Thanks.Aiming for tomorrow I believe.
The problem with using age is that it changes. The 20 year old Labour leaning voter will be a 50 year Conservative one day. They might have a paid off house and a pension by then, but they are still working class at heart. Labour has lost the ability to keep those voters as they age because they feel betrayed by what the party has become.
Makes no difference. Wealth inequality hasn't moved much over the last 20-30 years, the biggest spike was in the mid 2000s under a Labour government. People have begun to realise the parties are all the same so vote for the devil you already know.
Accurate.
Accurate.
Accurate.
I bet he cannot explain what he means. Just thrown a bunch of words around.
Is she not a he?She's spot on
Is she not a he?
I always thought it meant "aware that certain things are offensive and upsetting to people, so maybe it's worth trying to change our ways" and since the opposite of that would be to say "I refuse to slightly bother myself by making the world a better place for others" the arseholes decided to make it sound like all woke folk are just childish and pompous.What exactly does 'woke' mean?
Also why is one group 'obsessed' with identity, but the call to focus on 'the working class' (there's overlap btw) isn't an obsession with identity?
I always thought it meant "aware that certain things are offensive and upsetting to people, so maybe it's worth trying to change our ways" and since the opposite of that would be to say "I refuse to slightly bother myself by making the world a better place for others" the arseholes decided to make it sound like all woke folk are just childish and pompous.
Maybe some people believe this, maybe even you believe it. But it is inaccurate. But maybe that is the point, we live in an age of spin, government lies and disinformation.Not really, budgets were cut all over the place, in Tory as well as Labour held Councils, its where the cuts actually fell that persuaded many that Labour had got hold of the wrong end of the stick; or perhaps they cut in areas that would reflect badly on the Central Government, to prove a point, maybe?
No the real awakening in 'red wall' areas was that for all the years Labour was in power, both locally and nationally very little was done to improve the economic climate in these areas. Yes, there were lots of Government schemes but when the money ran out the schemes collapsed, no real investment was made, but lots of it wasted to buy short term popularity. In red wall areas it was worse, Labour was so sure of the vote in these areas, they hardly made any effort at all.
Boris and the Tories have promised a 'leveling up' agenda, if they achieve half of this they will retain power in these areas, if they fail Labour has to be ready to step in... however its a long hard road, but as someone once said "A journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step".
I meant to find some stats myself, thank you.Maybe some people believe this, maybe even you believe it. But it is inaccurate. But maybe that is the point, we live in an age of spin, government lies and disinformation.
"Labour councils in England hit harder by austerity than Tory areas"
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...gland-hit-harder-by-austerity-than-tory-areas
Eh? How’s that possible?
Aaah I see, fair enough.Voting patterns across councils could give a more wider data set to predict a general election than one single by-election result in the North East.
This isn't true at all, there all kinds of statistics that show that wealth inequality has increase over that period. I can't be bothered to get them for you as I'm pretty ill right now, but I can look them up for you in a day or two.
Just off the top of my head, the % share of money earned by the richest has accelerated, and you have statistics showing how the young have less earnings at every age point up to 40 than those in the previous 2-3 generations.
The proportion of 25-35 year olds living at home was like 25% in the 60s, it rose to 50%+ last year for the first time since the great depression.
It's not really a big claim when incomes haven't really changed much, but house prices have accelerated rapidly and stock markets done so likewise due to loose monetary policy. Those with assets have gotten severely rich and those without have not.
There are a multitude of statistics that show it just isnt true. Wealth inequality hasn't moved that much at all according to government indexes like GINI and disposable income of the top and bottom percentiles.