Westminster Politics

berbatrick said:
From the same link I sent, in 1974 (the earliest date it goes back to) the youth vote was +14 for Labour in an election that was +4 for Labour, which means young people were 10 points more left. In 97, the overall vote was +13 and the youth vote was +22, young people were 11 points more left. ... in the last 2 elections, young voters have been 40 points more left.

The reason Labour lost in 2019 was older voters:
How%20Britain%20voted%202019%20age-01.png


I'm not sure who is doing the rewriting!
Click to expand...

All of us who lived through imagined it all? Yep, we've been through this argument before on other subjects. Pfff.

These are figures for people who actually voted. Ergo not many young people voted in 2019 ? On the first attachment the second lowest Labour vote in youngsters was 2010.
Statistics and statistics and then there's reality.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
All of us who lived through imagined it all? Yep, we've been through this argument before on other subjects. Pfff.

These are figures for people who actually voted. Ergo not many young people voted in 2019 ? On the first attachment the second lowest Labour vote in youngsters was 2010.
Statistics and statistics and then there's reality.
Click to expand...
I'd also add that there's no comparison between the old and current versions of the party, the current party would likely be regarded as Tory by the 1970's party
 
TheGame said:
Sunak really is the nastiest of cnuts, more so than Boris. Quoting the Daily Mail and the Labour Party when it's nothing to do with the latter. They really do love appealing to the right wing mob.
Click to expand...

The Establishment Parties, a subset of lawyers, criminal gangs - [WE'RE] all on the same side, propping up a system of exploitation that profits [MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES] illegally [BY USING WEDGE ISSUES LIKE MIGRATION TO DIVIDE AND RULE].

Fixed.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
All of us who lived through imagined it all? Yep, we've been through this argument before on other subjects. Pfff.

These are figures for people who actually voted. Ergo not many young people voted in 2019 ? On the first attachment the second lowest Labour vote in youngsters was 2010.
Statistics and statistics and then there's reality.
Click to expand...

I've lived through quite a few elections in India and the US and I'd trust polls over the very skewed samples of people I personally knew.
 
What's being left out here is the unionization and the crush of it over the Thatcher years. That points to an actual left-wing which a party does not necessarily represent. Labour's internal struggles since the 70s have been precisely that. I'd say the UK was far more left wing in the 70s (or 60s/70s) but much more liberal (post-neo-liberal) today.

15 million trade unionists? Barely a million or so today? A couple million? That's an enormous left wing metric voting records will not give you.

6 million today. much higher than i would have assumed.
 
Last edited:
berbatrick said:
I've lived through quite a few elections in India and the US and I'd trust polls over the very skewed samples of people I personally knew.
Click to expand...

You've ignored my points and I'm not talking about the people I knew ; from 64 the country was pro-Labour, youngsters were looking to change the old fuddy duddy ways - swinging sixties, ban the bomb, strikes , free love, hippies, etc etc etc. Heath won in 1970 completely out of the blue probably because of seeming more pro-joining Europe which appealed to the young and Powell attracting the racist vote. By the end of the 70s everyone was sick of having no money and taxes were reduced. Nutjob Michael Foot became Labour leader and the Tories stayed in power till they messed up and Blair gained a whitewash.

Sick of being told what our lives were like. And I wasn't old enough to vote until Oct 74 when I voted Labour aged 18. You just lived it not read some distorted statistics.
 
Last edited:
Ekkie Thump said:
That wasn't what I asked, but thanks for the heads up.

While it's obviously presumptuous to assert that she's his daughter there's equally little evidence that she earned her peerage through a lifetime of service to the realm. The guy's a well known nepotist so people are bound to speculate on the exact motive for his nepotism in this particular case.
Click to expand...
She has his DNA inside her, one way or another or potentially accidentally both
 
TheGame said:
Sunak really is the nastiest of cnuts, more so than Boris. Quoting the Daily Mail and the Labour Party when it's nothing to do with the latter. They really do love appealing to the right wing mob.
Click to expand...


I mean this more as a matter of fact than Labour criticism (separate argument) but stuff like this is the only place the Tories have to turn. With Labour occupying the Cameron/Blair policy space the Tories have to move right to win votes.

I expect them to ramp this up Trump style whilst promising tax cuts and a reduced state.

If I were the Tories i'd go big on net zero funding and personal energy security via renewables grants. Heck I'm a leftie but if they out did Labour on climate change funding they'd get my vote.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
You've ignored my points and I'm not talking about the people I knew ; from 64 the country was pro-Labour, youngsters were looking to change the old fuddy duddy ways - swinging sixties, ban the bomb, strikes , free love, hippies, etc etc etc. Heath won in 1970 completely out of the blue probably because of seeming more pro-joining Europe which appealed to the young and Powell attracting the racist vote. By the end of the 70s everyone was sick of having no money and taxes were reduced. Nutjob Michael Foot became Labour leader and the Tories stayed in power till they messed up and Blair gained a whitewash.

Sick of being told what our lives were like. And I wasn't old enough to vote until Oct 74 when I voted Labour aged 18. You just lived it not read some distorted statistics.
Click to expand...
But it's fine for you to tell us what our lives are like now?

Seems to be a common theme with your posts
 
Smores said:
I mean this more as a matter of fact than Labour criticism (separate argument) but stuff like this is the only place the Tories have to turn. With Labour occupying the Cameron/Blair policy space the Tories have to move right to win votes.

I expect them to ramp this up Trump style whilst promising tax cuts and a reduced state.

If I were the Tories i'd go big on net zero funding and personal energy security via renewables grants. Heck I'm a leftie but if they out did Labour on climate change funding they'd get my vote.
Click to expand...

Since alot of the right wing are climate changer deniers, I can't see this happening. They've only culture wars and coming from people whose parents migrated to this country it's more despicable.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
This doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
You're not happy people make claims about periods of your life using statistics but you were happy to make claims about young people today a few posts above.

You said young people were more left wing back in your day. How have you arrived at that conclusion? How do you know how left wing young people are today? I'd assume by making a judgement about them using.. statistics?
 
Smores said:
I mean this more as a matter of fact than Labour criticism (separate argument) but stuff like this is the only place the Tories have to turn. With Labour occupying the Cameron/Blair policy space the Tories have to move right to win votes.

I expect them to ramp this up Trump style whilst promising tax cuts and a reduced state.

If I were the Tories i'd go big on net zero funding and personal energy security via renewables grants. Heck I'm a leftie but if they out did Labour on climate change funding they'd get my vote.
Click to expand...

:eek: How can anything the tories promise be believed?

They could pledge a trillion pounds in grants and subsidies in the next parliament, but it would be deliberately setup so they'd end up only spending a few billion on consultants and a new energy firm owned by Sunak's neighbour.
 
Mogget said:
You're not happy people make claims about periods of your life using statistics but you were happy to make claims about young people today a few posts above.

You said young people were more left wing back in your day. How have you arrived at that conclusion? How do you know how left wing young people are today? I'd assume by making a judgement about them using.. statistics?
Click to expand...

I said it was my personal opinion, not backing up with onerous misleading statistics, . Everyone who's posted on here of a similar age group say the same, they come from all walks of life and all parts of the country. For our time there are young people telling us how it was because they read something somewhere without having the slightest idea of what the mood of the country was.

In the present day we are both alive seeing how the situation is. Corbyn was nowhere near as popular or as competent a politician as the Labour people of the 60s and 70s like Wilson.
Starmer I'm making a guess that he is not loved by the current young people. I personally think he's an awful politician.
The mood seems to be that people should vote for Starmer because he may at least not be as bad as the Tories; what an endorsement.

The way things are shaping up, Starmer could take over from the Tories and nobody would hardly tell the difference.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Starmer I'm making a guess that he is not loved by the current young people. I personally think he's an awful politician.
The mood seems to be that people should vote for Starmer because he may at least not be as bad as the Tories; what an endorsement.
Click to expand...

Starmer is not a leader who people young or old would pick out as 'the man for the job', he is not a 'smooth' character, a comedian, his one liners can back fire on him, he is however I suspect 'a winner' as much as anything because he realises the size of the task ahead and he seems to understand what needs to be done. He is aware that he needs not only to win but to win big if his government is going to achieve anything substantial, not just 'in government' but 'in power'. Starmer will say things he needs to say to survive (don't we all if the truth be told) he will change his mind when he realises he's going down a 'blind alley', again don't we all when we take the wrong turn. Starmer is making a virtue out of doing what needs to be done to capture the prize, that's OK by me.
 
Maticmaker said:
Starmer is not a leader who people young or old would pick out as 'the man for the job', he is not a 'smooth' character, a comedian, his one liners can back fire on him, he is however I suspect 'a winner' as much as anything because he realises the size of the task ahead and he seems to understand what needs to be done. He is aware that he needs not only to win but to win big if his government is going to achieve anything substantial, not just 'in government' but 'in power'. Starmer will say things he needs to say to survive (don't we all if the truth be told) he will change his mind when he realises he's going down a 'blind alley', again don't we all when we take the wrong turn. Starmer is making a virtue out of doing what needs to be done to capture the prize, that's OK by me.
Click to expand...

I haven't bought into the try to remain electable stance. As the election gets closer the only things he seems to stick with are, make brexit work and stop the boats. You could seeing him alienating more voters the nearer the election approaches. Some will say if we are having a fake Tory, we may as well have the real thing. Could see labour's huge poll lead diminish.

Then if he does get elected - what's he going to do. He'll only have one term to make a huge difference otherwise he's out, Labour are finished and Tories will be back for some considerable time. A strong personality and a convincing public speaker could pull it off. Starmer - just don't see him still being around by 2026/7. The Uk have got a very tough few years ahead whoever's in charge.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
I said it was my personal opinion, not backing up with onerous misleading statistics, . Everyone who's posted on here of a similar age group say the same, they come from all walks of life and all parts of the country. For our time there are young people telling us how it was because they read something somewhere without having the slightest idea of what the mood of the country was.

In the present day we are both alive seeing how the situation is. Corbyn was nowhere near as popular or as competent a politician as the Labour people of the 60s and 70s like Wilson.
Starmer I'm making a guess that he is not loved by the current young people. I personally think he's an awful politician.
The mood seems to be that people should vote for Starmer because he may at least not be as bad as the Tories; what an endorsement.

The way things are shaping up, Starmer could take over from the Tories and nobody would hardly tell the difference.
Click to expand...
This attitude is basically what got Trump elected in 2016, the thought was "he's not Clinton" - that worked out well!

As one of the older age group, I agree, without any stats etc, that young people in the 60's and 70's were more left wing than those of today
 
Red in STL said:
As one of the older age group, I agree, without any stats etc, that young people in the 60's and 70's were more left wing than those of today
Click to expand...
And as another one I agree too, whatever stats are dredged up, and I will suggest two possible reasons.

Young people could afford to be more altruistic then in a way because they had no fear of unemployment. Jobs were easy come easy go from 1945 to around 1974, although by god it changed it then.

Thatcher came later with her disgraceful but oh so seductive 'greed is good for everyone' philosophy, and a lot of that has stuck and is still here, sadly.
 
711 said:
And as another one I agree too, whatever stats are dredged up, and I will suggest two possible reasons.

Young people could afford to be more altruistic then in a way because they had no fear of unemployment. Jobs were easy come easy go from 1945 to around 1974, although by god it changed it then.

Thatcher came later with her disgraceful but oh so seductive 'greed is good for everyone' philosophy, and a lot of that has stuck and is still here, sadly.
Click to expand...
It was a different world back then, Thatcher should have been a wake-up call but it led to Blair and Brown, who in reality were left wing Tories more than anything else, I'm not sure todays youngsters have any real idea what left-wing means anymore - and before they jump on me, that's my opinion not necessrily what stats etc tell us
 
The BBC have no got Farage asking for the Natwest Board to go as their main headline on their website. This makes me so angry. An elitist cnut can't get a bank account at an elitist bank and he's using this fecking story to keep himself in the spotlight.
 
TheGame said:
The BBC have no got Farage asking for the Natwest Board to go as their main headline on their website. This makes me so angry. An elitist cnut can't get a bank account at an elitist bank and he's using this fecking story to keep himself in the spotlight.
Click to expand...

You wonder what kompromat Farage has on certain BBC bosses. It's like they're his own personal PR firm.
 
FireballXL5 said:
You wonder what kompromat Farage has on certain BBC bosses. It's like they're his own personal PR firm.
Click to expand...
There’s no Kompromat. His views align with their own, it’s that simple.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
I haven't bought into the try to remain electable stance. As the election gets closer the only things he seems to stick with are, make brexit work and stop the boats. You could seeing him alienating more voters the nearer the election approaches. Some will say if we are having a fake Tory, we may as well have the real thing. Could see labour's huge poll lead diminish.

Then if he does get elected - what's he going to do. He'll only have one term to make a huge difference otherwise he's out, Labour are finished and Tories will be back for some considerable time. A strong personality and a convincing public speaker could pull it off. Starmer - just don't see him still being around by 2026/7. The Uk have got a very tough few years ahead whoever's in charge.
Click to expand...

As I said in my opening remarks, Starmer is not a 'front man', but he knows realistically what is necessary to win and its a long time since Labour had a leader with that quality, I'm guessing now, but you were probably in short pants last time with Harold Wilson ;)... I discount Tony Blair because he had the 'personality gene', Starmer plainly doesn't.

Yes, Starmer keeps talking about 'making Brexit work' and 'stop the boats', because in both cases whoever wins will have to accomplish both or move significantly towards achieving both. We are out of the EU and we wont get back anytime soon, even if we wanted to, and even it the EU wanted us back, so we will have to make the best 'fist' of that decision and move on. Also illegal entry (via boats, at least) to the country has to stop, a different way has to be found for genuine asylum seekers, everyone knows this to be true.

Hence is Starmer really saying in such comments anything that people don't already know?

I believe his target is not just to win but to achieve a sizable, majority, not just a workable one. I am beginning to believe Starmer has a plan to achieve just this, but he will have to walk a very narrow path to achieve it with all sides 'gunning' for him, even his own. Yes, I agree he needs at least two terms to get even close to being (in my living memory) a true Labour PM leading a Party that is back in touch not only with its roots, but with the majority of the British people, seeking a way forward for the majority not the few.
 
Maticmaker said:
As I said in my opening remarks, Starmer is not a 'front man', but he knows realistically what is necessary to win and its a long time since Labour had a leader with that quality, I'm guessing now, but you were probably in short pants last time with Harold Wilson ;)... I discount Tony Blair because he had the 'personality gene', Starmer plainly doesn't.

Yes, Starmer keeps talking about 'making Brexit work' and 'stop the boats', because in both cases whoever wins will have to accomplish both or move significantly towards achieving both. We are out of the EU and we wont get back anytime soon, even if we wanted to, and even it the EU wanted us back, so we will have to make the best 'fist' of that decision and move on. Also illegal entry (via boats, at least) to the country has to stop, a different way has to be found for genuine asylum seekers, everyone knows this to be true.

Hence is Starmer really saying in such comments anything that people don't already know?

I believe his target is not just to win but to achieve a sizable, majority, not just a workable one. I am beginning to believe Starmer has a plan to achieve just this, but he will have to walk a very narrow path to achieve it with all sides 'gunning' for him, even his own. Yes, I agree he needs at least two terms to get even close to being (in my living memory) a true Labour PM leading a Party that is back in touch not only with its roots, but with the majority of the British people, seeking a way forward for the majority not the few.
Click to expand...

The last time I wore short pants (other than shorts was when I was about 9) being tall , I'd look damn silly!:cool:
The first time I ever voted I did vote for Wilson. There was so much going on in the 60s and 70s, even when I was at school I was interested in current affairs. My interest in UK politics died in the 80s until Brexit. That woke me up!

Simple way to start solving the asylum seeker problem is to open up legal routes. Starmer won't suggest this because it doesn't appeal to the people he's targetting for votes. I know the Uk won't be able to join the EU for a very long time. But it must start closing the gap very soon if it wants to at some point in the future. At some point soon Starmer will have to say what he's going to do about the laws and agreements the Tories have been putting into place to distance itself from the EU (and the rest of the world). The problem with Starmer, which has been the case all along, since 2016 is that he doesn't understand custom's unions or the single market and still believes in unicorns. Until that is taken out of his mind he will genuinely believe that he can make Brexit work.

I believe Starmer will do or say anything to gain another vote. It will backfire drastically. He's being set up to hold the Brexit baby and forthcoming economic disaster over the next few years. The Tories really don't mind losing the next election.
 
711 said:
Jobs were easy come easy go from 1945 to around 1974, although by god it changed it then.
Click to expand...
IMO the Oil Crisis was the main catalyst for that ... 'Thatcherism' was a reaction to it. Maggie launched her 'theories' at just the right time and blew all opposition away. For a long time Labour couldn't find its way out of a 'paper bag'.

Arthur Scargill had been successful with his 'flying pickets' in the first Miners strike, but he didn't change his tactics for the second one and consequently Maggie was ready for him. Scargill led the Miners on a charge to a glorious defeat, that in the period and beyond that shattered thousands of lives and many of their descendants are still having to live with the consequences. The fallout effect on trades unionists not just in Mining, but all across British industry was devastating, and they were to suffer under the anti union laws brought in by the Tories. This was a major reduction in the power of unionised labour, that is now showing itself in the low wage/zero-hours/ working poor/etc, and the low numbers who are currently unionised
Decent paying Jobs didn't just disappear, they were never replaced!
 
Eyepopper said:
This is odd, she really reminds me of someone, but for the life of me I cant think who.
Click to expand...
She looks a bit like former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. It's as if she shares DNA with former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, because she has similar features to former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Which is strange because as far as I'm aware, based on what I've read in the press, she isn't the daughter of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

But there's a very Boris "former Prime Minister" Johnson look about her, in my opinion which is based on no evidence or media reports whatsoever.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
She looks a bit like former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. It's as if she shares DNA with former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, because she has similar features to former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Which is strange because as far as I'm aware, based on what I've read in the press, she isn't the daughter of former Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

But there's a very Boris "former Prime Minister" Johnson look about her, in my opinion which is based on no evidence or media reports whatsoever.
Click to expand...

No, it can't be him, I mean it could be, but if there was any chance of it being him, I couldn't see the lofty political standards he maintains allowing him to grant someone related to him a life long peerage, even if that person was fully deserving, having contributed so much to the country, as I believe is the case here.
 
Eyepopper said:
No, it can't be him, I mean it could be, but if there was any chance of it being him, I couldn't see the lofty political standards he maintains allowing him to grant someone related to him a life long peerage, even if that person was fully deserving, having contributed so much to the country, as I believe is the case here.
Click to expand...
Hang on a second, I think you're getting a bit ahead of yourself there look alike. NOBODY IS SAYING that she is related to Boris Johnson. I'm certainly not saying she's - just off the top of my head - an aunt or daughter of the guy. I'm just saying that she and he look similar.

But lots of people that aren't necessarily related. Prince Harry looks like James Hewitt, for example. I've even heard people say I look like other folk. Folk like my uncle's brother, or my grandma's son. Some folk even claim that I look like my mum's husband.
 
Maticmaker said:
IMO the Oil Crisis was the main catalyst for that ... 'Thatcherism' was a reaction to it. Maggie launched her 'theories' at just the right time and blew all opposition away. For a long time Labour couldn't find its way out of a 'paper bag'.

Arthur Scargill had been successful with his 'flying pickets' in the first Miners strike, but he didn't change his tactics for the second one and consequently Maggie was ready for him. Scargill led the Miners on a charge to a glorious defeat, that in the period and beyond that shattered thousands of lives and many of their descendants are still having to live with the consequences. The fallout effect on trades unionists not just in Mining, but all across British industry was devastating, and they were to suffer under the anti union laws brought in by the Tories. This was a major reduction in the power of unionised labour, that is now showing itself in the low wage/zero-hours/ working poor/etc, and the low numbers who are currently unionised
Decent paying Jobs didn't just disappear, they were never replaced!
Click to expand...

In my opinion has more to do with women getting in the job market. You cant create almost double the jobs in a few years
 
If I had two wishes the first would be for maticmaker to learn to use quotation marks properly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.