Westminster Politics

11101

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
21,285
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.
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.
 

jeff_goldblum

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Messages
3,917
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.
This is a big part of what Labour are reaping up here for sure. Ironically, even good things like investment in education in poorer areas made things worse in some ways. It wasn't matched with investment in infrastructure and jobs in those areas, so they started haemorrhaging bright, young people moving to the cities for better opportunities. So whilst the money went into schools in places like Hartlepool, the benefit of the education it paid for went with the kids to London/Manchester etc. Again, ironically, it's also one of the reasons the demographics of these areas are much friendlier to the Tories these days, it created a generation of people from working class backgrounds who could see the value of a Labour government but gave them no choice but to take their votes to the cities.
 

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
21,611
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.
 
Last edited:

11101

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
21,285
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.
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.
 

berbatrick

Renaissance Man
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
21,611
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.
sure, age changes, my belief is that it changes you through that very house and pension (which *do* affect the "working class heart").
the question is if the tories can generate enough homeowners at sufficiently early ages to keep winning elections. david cameron understood this: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...e-labour-voters-nick-clegg-says-a7223796.html

now, if class is a matter of capital and ownership rather than "heart", then these trends make a lot more sense.
 

Mr Pigeon

Illiterate Flying Rat
Scout
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
26,259
Location
bin
Either I'm completely out of touch with the rest of the UK but, especially with healthcare workers saying that they will now vote Tory, what are the chances that years from now we'll discover that we had rigged elections in our country?

I know, I know. It's obviously bullshit but I just can't fathom why some of these groups, healthcare workers in particular, would vote Tory. Not voting Labour, fair enough, but turning Blue?!
 

Mr Pigeon

Illiterate Flying Rat
Scout
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
26,259
Location
bin
Well, so far the SNP have increased their majority by two seats. Which is surprising since the British press have spent the whole week and yesterday night saying that an SNP majority was impossible. Funny that.

*Waits for Tory surge*
 

marktan

Full Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2017
Messages
6,930
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.
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.
 

Infra-red

Full Member
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
13,411
Location
left wing
In light of these results and the ones from the last GE, it is starting to look a bit like Labour might be finished in England.

Clear divide between England and Scotland, strongly pointing towards independence, too (which I suppose was always inevitable following the Brexit result).

Not sure how I feel about spending the rest of my days in a much diminished, and very blue, 'United Kingdom of England and Wales'.
 

Pexbo

Winner of the 'I'm not reading that' medal.
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
68,569
Location
Brizzle
Supports
Big Days
probably been posted already but worth a repost:
 

villain

Hates Beyoncé
Joined
Apr 22, 2014
Messages
14,973
I bet he cannot explain what he means. Just thrown a bunch of words around.
He knows exactly what he means, he's just too pussy to say it with his chest, so he hides behind buzzwords. It's nothing but a dog whistle.
 

Mr Pigeon

Illiterate Flying Rat
Scout
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
26,259
Location
bin
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.
 

villain

Hates Beyoncé
Joined
Apr 22, 2014
Messages
14,973
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.
I couldn’t tell you, because my understanding of woke is completely different to whatever generic meaning it has now.
I don’t even think two people have the same definition of it now.
 

groovyalbert

it's a mute point
Joined
Feb 14, 2013
Messages
9,653
Location
London
Interesting result. It would be particularly interesting to see where Labour picked up the difference. You'd imagine a lot of the UKIP vote would have gone Tory, and with the Lib Dem vote decreasing, was it a case of Tory voters turning to Labour?
 

Fluctuation0161

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
8,163
Location
Manchester
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".
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
 

711

Verified Bird Expert
Scout
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
24,254
Location
Don't sign old players and cast offs
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
I meant to find some stats myself, thank you.

The fact that @Maticmaker doesn't know this, genuinely I'm sure, isn't just a result of government spin, it's a result of Labour's total failure in bringing it forward. Labour used to be full of people that would have done just that at one time, press or no press.
 

11101

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
21,285
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.
 

TwoSheds

More sheds (and tiles) than you, probably
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
12,928
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.
Gini is based on income not assets. Inequality in assets has massively changed and continues apace.