That’s the excuse… sorry, “analysis” being promoted. It would seem to make more sense in light of a pathetically low turnout though.
It looks more to me, like socialism is not as unpopular as many would like it to be, particularly among the young.
I’m happy to see the narrative implied in your question become dominant. If the tories want to try again with a better candidate, bring it on.
Not to be a socialist at 20, is proof of want of a heart.
To still be one at 30, is proof of want of a head.
(Clemeanseau)
Obviously false on both counts. There are large numbers of highly intelligent socialists, and compassionate non-socialists in all age brackets.
Just because something is well expressed and sounds good, it doesn’t make it true, or worthy of repetition.
Have there been any stats done on the turnout of the elderly. They’re more likely to vote Conservative but were the targets at least twice of May’s manifesto with the Dementia Tax and the removal of the pensions triple-lock.
Ipsos Mori should be releasing estimates broken down by age, gender, social class etc next week. We know that overall turnout was high though. Around 69%, apparently the highest since 1997.
Agreed.
[Giant Soapbox Mode = On]
The critical point about “socialism” in the context of “democracy” is that there has to be a *compatible *distribution of economic value and of political power. Giving the vast majority of the money to the 0.1% but allowing one person one vote is not a stable combination.
We could go back to the days of Kings and le etat c’est moi. That’s the 0.(00000)1% approach to both economic and political power.
The interesting thing to me is that despite the absolute political equality implied by one person one vote, we don’t have to get anywhere near to absolute economic equality (i.e. 100% taxation then 100% redistribution per capita) to get to a compatible economic / political distribution.
So ordinary folks worldwide are by and large not voting for “socialism” writ large = 100% redistribution. They’re voting for an economic system that will work tolerably for everyone. Not only for the 0.1% and the couple/few percent of hangers-on just below them.
The impending robot / AI revolution will bring this problem utterly to front and center. Land, Labor, and Capital are the classic ingredients of economic activity. In Dayes of Yore, Land was primary and Capital almost nonexistent/irrelevant; the people who owned or controlled the Land were the 0.1%, period.
The Industrial Revolution relegated Land to third place well behind Labor and Capital. We still need land, but it’s value-add is trivial in the modern world. The big Land owners did not go quietly into the night as their value was eroded.
What’s about to happen is the current mix of economic value between Labor and Capital is about to be upended.
In 1900 it was (total WAG for argument’s sake), 80/20 in favor of Labor.
Today it’s probably 50/50 at best, and probably 60/40 in favor of Capital. Based on history, nobody should be surprised to see Labor not going quietly into the night either. Meantime Capital, with the wind at its back, is certainly working hard to defend their gains and if possible, extend them.
Post-robotics / AI it’ll be more like 95/5 in favor of Capital. You’ll be able to afford to eat to exactly the degree you own, or otherwise benefit from, Capital. Individual labor will be almost unsalable at any price.
We *will *have to rearrange our economics to account for this change. Or else the whole planet will look about like the standard 3rd World economy of the 1950s/1960s: a couple fatcats in the city and nearly everybody else living in cardboard shacks on the hillsides.
It’d be a real shame to do that to humanity.
[Giant Soapbox Mode = Off]
Here’s CNN on the winners and losers of the election: http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/09/europe/uk-election-winners-losers/?iid=ob_homepage_deskrecommended_pool
Quotes dating from before universal suffrage - never mind the welfare state it later begat - are not overly convincing.
For any interested Americans, the Jeremy Corby chant is an adapted football chant based on Seven Nation Army. Here#s your new ringtone - taken from the crowd at a Libertines concert:
Rumours that Theresa May is reluctant to call a new election for fear of losing her seat in Maidenhead to Lord Buckethead are said to be exaggerated.
Clemenceau was French. France had universal (male) suffrage from 1848.
Also it is doubtful if universal suffrage had much to do with welfare states, which were top-down driven by all sorts of regimes, not demanded. And today are often rejected by many of the working lower classes, persuaded by thatcherite and randian ideals. To the vast satisfaction of those in the media who hate socialism.
Clemenceau was a leftie mayor in the Franco-Prussian — by the time he led France in the Great War he was a right-wing revanchist demento.
Liked cats, though: there is always some good in the worst of us.
That may not be as helpful as you appear to think.
Oh it did.
It did and it didn’t (Bismarck, anyone? Not to mention the Bolsheviks and what they did to universal suffrage).
Anyway, welfare states are not necessarily socialism. It all depends how you define welfare as well as socialism.
Neither is missing the point completely as you do. The point is that people’s opinions and views change as they age and gain new life experiences. An 18 year old who has one view now, may not have the same view or views 12 years later as a salarymen with a wife, child and mortgage. To say socialism is on the march because the young perfer it is to ignore this fact. Generally speaking the older people become the more conservative they become. You might as well say that declining birthrates and increased lifespans means more conservatism in the future since older people lean conservative. And it would be just as wrong.
But it wasn’t just 20-somethings, though. There aren’t enough of them to make that much difference. 25-44 year-olds turned out for Labour and a lot of them *are *salary people with partners and children. Some have mortgages but many don’t - fewer as a %age than previous generations; parents can see what the effect of austerity on schools has been; middle-aged offspring of the elderly can see the effect of social care cuts.
Corbyn’s victory isn’t the story of fresh-faced naifs chasing a socialist mirage; he had wider appeal than that. The Guardian write up by political science professor analysing the kind of seats Labour won attributes Corbyn win to:
[ul]
[li]Winning big in Remain areas and losing small in Leave areas;[/li][li]Winning in seats with lots of graduates;[/li][li]Winning in seats with lots of middle-class and rich;[/li][li]Winning in seats with lots of students;[/li][li]Winning in seats with lots of young voters;[/li][/ul]
By contrast, the Tories won in areas with more people on low incomes; more school-leavers; more old people; higher Leave votes.
For a similar analysis, see also thispiece here, looking at where turnout increased. It comes to a similar conclusion (higher turnout was generally good for Labour. and also suggests ethnic diversity was a positive factor for Labour.
(NB: It should be noted that this is an analysis of the areas Labour won, not of the people who voted for Labour. Data on how people voted largely isn’t available yet.)
Umm… Corbyn lost. By a wide margin.
An excellent point. It’s the wrong word to use.
“Corbyn’s significantly better than expected performance” or “Labour’s gains…” would be better.
True. By that analysis the largest amount people to Vote Labour/abandon Tory should be the 45-65 crowd, i.e the sandwich years folks, with soon to be Uni kids and old parents; who would be worried for their parent’s care and for their children’s prospects. How did they vote?