The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[ml1dch]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

What age group is that?

 

[Jareth]

10 minutes ago, bickster said:

What age group is that?

Sorry - 18-25

[Jareth]

13 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

Yes that is all well and good but will they bother to vote? The old duffer brigade does in droves and votes overwhelmingly Tory. As shown in various elections and brexit in the last 10 years.

The old duffer brigade will also expire over the next two election cycles - and the 18-25s who will then be in their 30s will still not be able to afford housing.

[ml1dch]

Just now, Jareth said:

The old duffer brigade will also expire over the next two election cycles - and the 18-25s who will then be in their 30s will still not be able to afford housing.

And this is the crucial point. There's the old adage of "people get more right-wing as they get older", which isn't really the case. People become more capitalist as they become more invested in capital, which logically coincides with getting older.

If you've spent your decade and a half in in power deliberately hurting the people who you are going to rely on to elect you next time, don't be surprised if you find yourself struggling for support. 

[chrisp65]

The problem here, is you would never get 86% of yoofs to vote for anything.

You wouldn’t get mass turn out if they had to vote for giving themselves free beer for life, they’d forget, or wander off and presume everyone else would vote for it.

Middle aged tory scum tend to vote to protect their status. Younger disenfranchised voters tend to go on marches for their socials selfies, but not actually quite get around to actually voting.

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

I don't think they're stupid enough to just yell "no more outsourcing" and expect everyone to cope. There would need to be sufficient funding to absorb these services into NHS capacity, be that within trusts, or more centralised services in some cases.

That will of course cost money, but if we can afford to pay for private providers to provide the service and make a profit off it, we can afford to provide the service in the NHS.

As it happens, you don't need to worry, because it's another pledge Starmer has rowed back on, because, depending on your view, he's a duplicitous snake in the grass/economic circumstances have changed.

Well this is what he needs to clarify- is it some services or all out sourcing as its a bit vague. I mean a example outside nhs near me you can't get a ENT appointment for a ear clean at GP or referred for hospital for a kong long time but what has happened you can get this done off the nhs. You pay £35 and they do it a driveable portable cabin. You go online and choose the slot date and time. It works really well tbh

I know this isnt nhs out sourcing but my point being is this the ling term plan to take off some of the services like this off the nhs and give people option to pay done it privately at a affordable price?

Id love to hear a proper plan for the nhs not just that they plan to recruit more or throw more money at it.

 

[The Fun Factory]

1 hour ago, ml1dch said:

And this is the crucial point. There's the old adage of "people get more right-wing as they get older", which isn't really the case. People become more capitalist as they become more invested in capital, which logically coincides with getting older.

If you've spent your decade and a half in in power deliberately hurting the people who you are going to rely on to elect you next time, don't be surprised if you find yourself struggling for support. 

True, which is why the tory rural nimbys are in the long term weakening their position. That is what Simon Clarke, head of leveling up for about 5 minutes, said in the house a few months back. However, we also have a demographic time bomb which will result in a massively ageing population. This could get even worse if migrants coming for work decide Britain isn't worth going to.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

1 hour ago, The Fun Factory said:

True, which is why the tory rural nimbys are in the long term weakening their position. That is what Simon Clarke, head of leveling up for about 5 minutes, said in the house a few months back. However, we also have a demographic time bomb which will result in a massively ageing population. This could get even worse if migrants coming for work decide Britain isn't worth going to.

An imbalance in the Demographics will eventually kill any economy no matter how well its run.  As you said there is a time bomb but I think this is true for most of the developed word.

The UK seems to be about average compared to other similar countries, 

Russia on the other hand. 

They have approx 50M under the age of 35 from a population of 143 M so very top heavy.  (This is not counting the war).  They will have massive problems that can't be fixed.  

[Demitri_C]

Are labour gonna wipe the floor with them with the council elections? Id say yes

[ml1dch]

20 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Are labour gonna wipe the floor with them with the council elections? Id say yes

Depends on your expectations. They'll probably gain several hundred with the Tories losing several hundred. But those seat changes are going to be a very bad metric to judge what might happen in an important election. 

[MCU]

3 Tories running in my district () doing their best to take the seat off the independent...

[LondonLax]

5 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

The problem here, is you would never get 86% of yoofs to vote for anything.

You wouldn’t get mass turn out if they had to vote for giving themselves free beer for life, they’d forget, or wander off and presume everyone else would vote for it.

Middle aged tory scum tend to vote to protect their status. Younger disenfranchised voters tend to go on marches for their socials selfies, but not actually quite get around to actually voting.

I think there are politically engaged young people who both go on marches and also vote, then there will be a group who think politics is nothing to do with them.

You find both those groups in all ages of course but the balance will skew differently at different demographics. 

[bickster]

39 minutes ago, MCU said:

3 Tories running in my district () doing their best to take the seat off the independent...

For one seat or three?

[markavfc40]

2 hours ago, ml1dch said:

Depends on your expectations. They'll probably gain several hundred with the Tories losing several hundred. But those seat changes are going to be a very bad metric to judge what might happen in an important election. 

Aren't these the same seats that were contested in 2019 when Theresa May was heading towards rock bottom and the Tories lost over a 1000 seats? if so then there comes a point when they can't keep losing seats at that rate as they won't have them to defend. 

I'd think given the above anything over around 500 seat losses for the Tories is a diabolical night for them.

Edited May 4, 2023 by markavfc40

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

Aren't these the same seats that were contested in 2019 when Theresa May was heading towards rock bottom and the Tories lost over a 1000 seats? if so then there comes a point when they can't keep losing seats at that rate as they won't have them to defend. 

I'd think given the above anything over around 500 seat losses for the Tories is a diabolical night.

Yep, this round of councillors is electing councilors from a very bad Tory year

[ml1dch]

2 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

Aren't these the same seats that were contested in 2019 when Theresa May was heading towards rock bottom and the Tories lost over a 1000 seats? if so then there comes a point when they can't keep losing seats at that rate as they won't have them to defend. 

I'd think given the above anything over around 500 seat losses for the Tories is a diabolical night.

They are, and I'd broadly agree. 

However, it was also in the context of it being slap-bang in the middle of Labour and Corbyn being really unpopular as well - so even with the Tories at rock bottom, Labour still managed to lose rather than gain seats in 2019. So if Labour don't make pretty enormous gains from that position, it's a pretty bad night for them. I reckon anything under 300-400 gains and they've probably got some pretty big issues to sort out if they want to win the General. 

As above though, +/- on seats is far less important than overall vote share. If the maths contrives to give Labour 200 extra seats but a 15 lead on vote share, that's fine. 400 seats and an 8 point lead on vote share and they've got problems. 

[Demitri_C]

Havent had one labour leaflet or person knock in my door.  They dont care about this area clearly

[ml1dch]

Just now, Demitri_C said:

Havent had one labour leaflet or person knock in my door.  They dont care about this area clearly

What ward are you in, out of curiosity?

[Demitri_C]

1 minute ago, ml1dch said:

What ward are you in, out of curiosity?

Broxbourne 

Only had tories

Edited May 4, 2023 by Demitri_C

[ml1dch]

3 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Broxbourne 

Thanks - I can see why Labour might think their resources might be better diverted elsewhere:

 

Broxbourne & Hoddesdon South (2019)

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±%
	Conservative	Paul Mason	1,445	68.1	-4.4
	Conservative	Sherrie McDaid	1,276	60.2	-12.3
	Liberal Democrats	Kirstie de Rivaz	407	19.2	+11.2
	Labour	Kathy Condon	339	16.0	+2.5
	Liberal Democrats	Lukasz Gryzbon	287	13.5	+5.5
	Labour	Jean Legg	264	12.4	-1.1
Majority
Turnout
	Conservative hold		Swing
	Conservative hold		Swing