By which analysis? 45-65 are less likely to be unable to afford a home and to have young kids beginning their time in underfinanced schools, which were two of the factors I suggested drove the 25-44 year-old vote. 45-65 *are *more likely to have care and tuition fee concerns, but are also more likely both to be concerned about Corbyn’s IRA and anti-Falkland baggage and to have voted Leave, both of which would tend to drive Conservative voting.
Anyhow, according to this Lord Ashcroft poll, 45-54 split almost evenly (40% Con, 39% Labour), 55-64 split 47% Con 33% Lab and only when you get to 65+ do you see a clear majority for the Tories (59%). There is an age split in politics just now, but the Tories don’t get a clear win until you get to 55+. Given demographics that’s still a big deal, obviously, but to circle back to the original point, Labour success was not just about turning out the yoof.
That may be true, but I reject the idea that it is necessarily due to their becoming “older and wiser”. There may be other factors at play.
For example, over recent history, western societies have generally been moving in the direction of greater equality. Someone considered a leftie in their youth, might well find themselves viewed as a bigoted reactionary a few decades later without having changed their opinions all that significantly.
Secondly, some percentage of people may just be selfish. When they are young and poor, this manifests itself as a desire for redistribution. When they are old and wealthy, they want to keep what they’ve got.
There are also a great many counter examples. People who move to the left as they get older or at least stay where they are. I would say that there seems to be some positive correlation between intelligence/education levels and progressive views among all age groups anyway.
Corbyn lost the election, but he has greatly strengthened his position both within the party and with the electorate. Bear in mind that there is likely to be another election this year and Labour are now polling hugely ahead of the Conservatives.
There is a reason why the tories are devastated by the result. There is now a non-negligible possibility of a majority Labour government in the near future, which seemed like a fantasy this time last week. Every day May hangs on, the Conservatives continue to weaken.
There is also a certain irony in the fact that they are currently being propped up by Northern Irish, terrorist sympathising, religious fundamentalists.
Don’t get me wrong, this result isn’t really good for anyone, and there’s a good chance it will all get much worse. People like me are feeling only that there seems to be hope where before there was none. It’s like a person, due to be executed in the morning, finding out they have the right to appeal to a higher court. One with a reputation for reasonableness.
Seeing Foster and Dodds waving on the doorstep of No.10, just over a week after May stood lecturing us on the need to be less tolerant of extremism, has me convinced that irony is completely lost on this lot.
I think they’re making a mistake by bundling the SNP and other regional parties in with the rest. You should have separate statistics for England, Scotland, Wales, and NI.
Also attributed to Churchill, with socialists replaced by liberals. Of course Churchill actually moved from the Liberals to the Tories as he got older, so it makes more sense there.
One of my favourites, said in response to someone ribbing him from having defected from Tory to Liberal and back again, was “I would rather be right than consistent.”
Only reason he started as a Tory was since Dad was a big Tory.
Its often forgotten how much he supported progressive causes as a young politician. He was for Home Rule in Ireland (unlike his father who opposed it bitterly), opposed large Naval estimates, was one of the Principal Architects of the “people’s budget”. He also supported enfranchisement of women; his well-known opposition to suffragettes came since like many Liberal leaders he feared that giving the vote to Mrs Pankhurst and her ilk meant that they would increase middle class (i.e Tory) voters, since contrary to popular belief suffragettes generally represented the monied elite. Plus they seem to have a penchant for physically attacking him.
The Edwardian politician would have been horrified in many ways by the man of the 1940’s.
I’m surprised it’s as high as that. The Sun has a reading age of 8. That is, you would need the reading skills expected of an 8 year old to understand an average article.
People I have known who buy The Sun are about as likely to go out and vote as they are to watch a chess tournament. Their idea of engaging with politics is telling their mates down the pub, that we should bring back hanging for paedos and muslimists. Politics, like science, art, history, philosophy and basically anything not pertaining to tits or football are inherently ridiculous to them.