Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New academic research shows the wide differences between CON m

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited January 4 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New academic research shows the wide differences between CON members and those who join other parties

 

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,296
    edited January 4
    Thirst.

    This is hardly a surprising finding, is it?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,459
    Second, like Remain.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    edited January 4
    Interesting that SNP members are more supportive of the death penalty than Labour or LD members. LD members are more supportive of austerity and big business than Labour or SNP members and LD and SNP members more supportive of a second referendum and the single market than Labour members. Though Tory members clearly contrast with all of them on each of those issues.

    The collapse of UKIP also means the Tories largely have the right to themselves while there are still more alternative parties on the left to Labour even though most leftwingers are now voting Labour.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,711
    FPT
    malcolmg said:

    GIN1138 said:

    I see Tony is spouting off about Brexit again... On the morning Bannon has revealed he was creeping around Donald looking for even more money...

    Utterly, utterly shameless! :D

    Morning GIN, all well with you I hope
    Morning Malc. :)

    All it well with me thanks.

    Happy Hogmanay to you and Mrs G. :D
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,948
    Tory party faces a choice. Does it continue to modernise in pursuit if a broad, one nation pragmatic version of itself. Or does it prefer to become a more focused right wing ideological group.

    Can't do both.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 20,654

    Thirst.

    This is hardly a surprising finding, is it?

    I'm surprised that hardly any members of political parties are non-White, and that there are not more women in the Conservative Party. Other than that, it's all much as expected.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    edited January 4
    Jonathan said:

    Tory party faces a choice. Does it continue to modernise in pursuit if a broad, one nation pragmatic version of itself. Or does it prefer to become a more focused right wing ideological group.

    Can't do both.

    Under FPTP it can do the latter and get 40%+ and win most seats, especially when the alternative is Corbyn. The biggest movement of Tory voters since June, not that there has been much, has been to UKIP
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,459
    Jonathan said:

    Tory party faces a choice. Does it continue to modernise in pursuit if a broad, one nation pragmatic version of itself. Or does it prefer to become a more focused right wing ideological group.

    Can't do both.

    The Tory party since Brexit is more traditionally one nation and less ideologically right wing than under Cameron/Osborne.

    It just happens to disagree with you about being in Europe.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,137
    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    Tory party faces a choice. Does it continue to modernise in pursuit if a broad, one nation pragmatic version of itself. Or does it prefer to become a more focused right wing ideological group.

    Can't do both.

    Under FPTP it can do the latter and get 40%+ and win most seats, especially when the alternative is Corbyn. The biggest movement of Tory voters since June, not that there has been much, has been to UKIP
    It might in the short term, but by doing so it would doom itself.

    In any event, the survey would be more interesting if it included a comparison with the opinions of the UK voters overall.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,137
    Mildly amusing that of the three other parties, SNP members appear to be closest the Tories in the views that they hold.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    edited January 4
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    Tory party faces a choice. Does it continue to modernise in pursuit if a broad, one nation pragmatic version of itself. Or does it prefer to become a more focused right wing ideological group.

    Can't do both.

    Under FPTP it can do the latter and get 40%+ and win most seats, especially when the alternative is Corbyn. The biggest movement of Tory voters since June, not that there has been much, has been to UKIP
    It might in the short term, but by doing so it would doom itself.

    In any event, the survey would be more interesting if it included a comparison with the opinions of the UK voters overall.
    Why? About 40% of the country is right-wing and 40% left-wing with 20% in the middle. With Labour taking a firmly left-wing position, if the Tories consolidate the right for themselves that still leaves room to appeal to the centre with the base secure given the altermative is Corbyn.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    Nigelb said:

    Mildly amusing that of the three other parties, SNP members appear to be closest the Tories in the views that they hold.

    On law and order certainly, less so economics. MalcG is certainly no liberal
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,769
    Very interesting findings.

    I am disappointed that so many of my fellow Labourites appear to favour a racist immigration policy post-Brexit. Same rules doesn't mean a 'tough line', it means non-discriminatory rather than favouring white Europeans.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 1,956
    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    Tory party faces a choice. Does it continue to modernise in pursuit if a broad, one nation pragmatic version of itself. Or does it prefer to become a more focused right wing ideological group.

    Can't do both.

    The Tory party since Brexit is more traditionally one nation and less ideologically right wing than under Cameron/Osborne.

    It just happens to disagree with you about being in Europe.
    Wrong, wrong, wrong! Look at the demographics my young Tory friend!

    It's all heading in the wrong direction for the Tories...
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,071

    Very interesting findings.

    I am disappointed that so many of my fellow Labourites appear to favour a racist immigration policy post-Brexit. Same rules doesn't mean a 'tough line', it means non-discriminatory rather than favouring white Europeans.

    Surely it's Europeans of any colour.

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,769
    The stats put a lie to the notion that we are a party of north-London twenty-somethings.

    The middle-aged man in a Durham pit village is a more typical member than the purple-haired student in Camden.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    edited January 4
    murali_s said:

    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    Tory party faces a choice. Does it continue to modernise in pursuit if a broad, one nation pragmatic version of itself. Or does it prefer to become a more focused right wing ideological group.

    Can't do both.

    The Tory party since Brexit is more traditionally one nation and less ideologically right wing than under Cameron/Osborne.

    It just happens to disagree with you about being in Europe.
    Wrong, wrong, wrong! Look at the demographics my young Tory friend!

    It's all heading in the wrong direction for the Tories...
    It is the middle aged 35 to 65 year olds the Tories need for a majority, the old always vote Tory and the young always vote Labour unless one wins a landslide
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 1,956

    Very interesting findings.

    I am disappointed that so many of my fellow Labourites appear to favour a racist immigration policy post-Brexit. Same rules doesn't mean a 'tough line', it means non-discriminatory rather than favouring white Europeans.

    The problem is the slippery slope. That's the fear...

    I of course favour a very open immigration system - that is not what the right wingers who are driving Brexit desire...
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,769

    Very interesting findings.

    I am disappointed that so many of my fellow Labourites appear to favour a racist immigration policy post-Brexit. Same rules doesn't mean a 'tough line', it means non-discriminatory rather than favouring white Europeans.

    Surely it's Europeans of any colour.

    Who tend to be whiter on average than Indians or Africans.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 10,711
    edited January 4
    HYUFD said:

    the old always vote Tory

    Though fewer of them probably did in Election 2017 after Theresa decided to threaten their WFA and houses! :D
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,071

    Very interesting findings.

    I am disappointed that so many of my fellow Labourites appear to favour a racist immigration policy post-Brexit. Same rules doesn't mean a 'tough line', it means non-discriminatory rather than favouring white Europeans.

    Surely it's Europeans of any colour.

    Who tend to be whiter on average than Indians or Africans.

    Of course - but there is no discrimination in favour of white Europeans, just Europeans.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,463

    Very interesting findings.

    I am disappointed that so many of my fellow Labourites appear to favour a racist immigration policy post-Brexit. Same rules doesn't mean a 'tough line', it means non-discriminatory rather than favouring white Europeans.

    Surely it's Europeans of any colour.

    Who tend to be whiter on average than Indians or Africans.
    And weren't there just about the same number of EU and non-EU immigrants, net, coming into the country as of whichever year's stats they were?

    This Daily Mash article is the gift that keeps on giving.

    thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-claims-hius-life-being-ruined-by-immigration-but-cant-explain-how-20170227122932
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,071
    It would be interesting to find out what Tory members consider to be traditional British values. Is obeying authority one of them?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    edited January 4
    GIN1138 said:

    HYUFD said:

    the old always vote Tory

    Though fewer of them probably did in Election 2017 after Theresa decided to threaten their WFA and houses! :D
    Actually May won a higher percentage of over 65s than Cameron did, it was the middle aged and young where she saw a big fall in the Tory vote compared to Cameron because of the dementia tax and Corbyn's promise to scrap tuition fees, while there was more support for Brexit the older you got
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,769

    Very interesting findings.

    I am disappointed that so many of my fellow Labourites appear to favour a racist immigration policy post-Brexit. Same rules doesn't mean a 'tough line', it means non-discriminatory rather than favouring white Europeans.

    Surely it's Europeans of any colour.

    Who tend to be whiter on average than Indians or Africans.

    Of course - but there is no discrimination in favour of white Europeans, just Europeans.

    Can we settle on "discrimination in favour of migration from (some) countries with the highest proportion of white citizens"?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,769
    TOPPING said:

    Very interesting findings.

    I am disappointed that so many of my fellow Labourites appear to favour a racist immigration policy post-Brexit. Same rules doesn't mean a 'tough line', it means non-discriminatory rather than favouring white Europeans.

    Surely it's Europeans of any colour.

    Who tend to be whiter on average than Indians or Africans.
    And weren't there just about the same number of EU and non-EU immigrants, net, coming into the country as of whichever year's stats they were?

    This Daily Mash article is the gift that keeps on giving.

    thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-claims-hius-life-being-ruined-by-immigration-but-cant-explain-how-20170227122932
    Those figures demonstrate the discrimination - the EU is not 50% of the rest of the world yet supplies 50% of migrants.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,071

    Very interesting findings.

    I am disappointed that so many of my fellow Labourites appear to favour a racist immigration policy post-Brexit. Same rules doesn't mean a 'tough line', it means non-discriminatory rather than favouring white Europeans.

    Surely it's Europeans of any colour.

    Who tend to be whiter on average than Indians or Africans.

    Of course - but there is no discrimination in favour of white Europeans, just Europeans.

    Can we settle on "discrimination in favour of migration from (some) countries with the highest proportion of white citizens"?

    "Discrimination in favour of migration by citizens of EU member states" is much easier and more accurate.

  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,459
    murali_s said:

    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    Tory party faces a choice. Does it continue to modernise in pursuit if a broad, one nation pragmatic version of itself. Or does it prefer to become a more focused right wing ideological group.

    Can't do both.

    The Tory party since Brexit is more traditionally one nation and less ideologically right wing than under Cameron/Osborne.

    It just happens to disagree with you about being in Europe.
    Wrong, wrong, wrong! Look at the demographics my young Tory friend!

    It's all heading in the wrong direction for the Tories...
    Urm, no. The economic ideologies of Osborne are being replaced with a much more One Nation vision under Hammond and May.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,071
    Mortimer said:

    murali_s said:

    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    Tory party faces a choice. Does it continue to modernise in pursuit if a broad, one nation pragmatic version of itself. Or does it prefer to become a more focused right wing ideological group.

    Can't do both.

    The Tory party since Brexit is more traditionally one nation and less ideologically right wing than under Cameron/Osborne.

    It just happens to disagree with you about being in Europe.
    Wrong, wrong, wrong! Look at the demographics my young Tory friend!

    It's all heading in the wrong direction for the Tories...
    Urm, no. The economic ideologies of Osborne are being replaced with a much more One Nation vision under Hammond and May.

    Can you provide some examples?

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,493
    The Labour membership is actually far older and more southern than I'd thought.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,463

    TOPPING said:

    Very interesting findings.

    I am disappointed that so many of my fellow Labourites appear to favour a racist immigration policy post-Brexit. Same rules doesn't mean a 'tough line', it means non-discriminatory rather than favouring white Europeans.

    Surely it's Europeans of any colour.

    Who tend to be whiter on average than Indians or Africans.
    And weren't there just about the same number of EU and non-EU immigrants, net, coming into the country as of whichever year's stats they were?

    This Daily Mash article is the gift that keeps on giving.

    thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-claims-hius-life-being-ruined-by-immigration-but-cant-explain-how-20170227122932
    Those figures demonstrate the discrimination - the EU is not 50% of the rest of the world yet supplies 50% of migrants.
    It demonstrates the universal truth that you are more likely to do more business with your neighbours and that conversely you are likely to see more of your neighbours than someone who lives across the world.

    Quite frankly this faux "will someone please think of the sub-Saharan Africans" quite nauseating and well below your (and others') usual standard of discourse. And the bar is pretty low to start with.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,493
    Jonathan said:

    Tory party faces a choice. Does it continue to modernise in pursuit if a broad, one nation pragmatic version of itself. Or does it prefer to become a more focused right wing ideological group.

    Can't do both.

    These findings actually show how hard it is to do the former.

    Its base and voting core now will tend to push it in a more socially conservative direction. If it does something radically different, under an Osborne agenda, for instance, the risk is it instantly slips back to 35-36% of the vote - satisfying affluent middle classes in the south in the process - but losing the election to Corbyn's Labour.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,994
    Mortimer said:

    murali_s said:

    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    Tory party faces a choice. Does it continue to modernise in pursuit if a broad, one nation pragmatic version of itself. Or does it prefer to become a more focused right wing ideological group.

    Can't do both.

    The Tory party since Brexit is more traditionally one nation and less ideologically right wing than under Cameron/Osborne.

    It just happens to disagree with you about being in Europe.
    Wrong, wrong, wrong! Look at the demographics my young Tory friend!

    It's all heading in the wrong direction for the Tories...
    Urm, no. The economic ideologies of Osborne are being replaced with a much more One Nation vision under Hammond and May.
    You should have gone to specsavers.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,493
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    Tory party faces a choice. Does it continue to modernise in pursuit if a broad, one nation pragmatic version of itself. Or does it prefer to become a more focused right wing ideological group.

    Can't do both.

    Under FPTP it can do the latter and get 40%+ and win most seats, especially when the alternative is Corbyn. The biggest movement of Tory voters since June, not that there has been much, has been to UKIP
    It might in the short term, but by doing so it would doom itself.

    In any event, the survey would be more interesting if it included a comparison with the opinions of the UK voters overall.
    Why? About 40% of the country is right-wing and 40% left-wing with 20% in the middle. With Labour taking a firmly left-wing position, if the Tories consolidate the right for themselves that still leaves room to appeal to the centre with the base secure given the altermative is Corbyn.
    It feels to me like our politics is going to become more American, and cultural, rather than economic.

    The Tories need to try and mitigate the concerns of those who are culturally at odds with them, and appeal to their economic competence. But, it will be very hard.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Very interesting findings.

    I am disappointed that so many of my fellow Labourites appear to favour a racist immigration policy post-Brexit. Same rules doesn't mean a 'tough line', it means non-discriminatory rather than favouring white Europeans.

    Surely it's Europeans of any colour.

    Who tend to be whiter on average than Indians or Africans.
    And weren't there just about the same number of EU and non-EU immigrants, net, coming into the country as of whichever year's stats they were?

    This Daily Mash article is the gift that keeps on giving.

    thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-claims-hius-life-being-ruined-by-immigration-but-cant-explain-how-20170227122932
    Those figures demonstrate the discrimination - the EU is not 50% of the rest of the world yet supplies 50% of migrants.
    It demonstrates the universal truth that you are more likely to do more business with your neighbours and that conversely you are likely to see more of your neighbours than someone who lives across the world.

    Quite frankly this faux "will someone please think of the sub-Saharan Africans" quite nauseating and well below your (and others') usual standard of discourse. And the bar is pretty low to start with.
    Especially given the comments we see about migrants from Syria.

    image
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,493
    HYUFD said:

    murali_s said:

    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    Tory party faces a choice. Does it continue to modernise in pursuit if a broad, one nation pragmatic version of itself. Or does it prefer to become a more focused right wing ideological group.

    Can't do both.

    The Tory party since Brexit is more traditionally one nation and less ideologically right wing than under Cameron/Osborne.

    It just happens to disagree with you about being in Europe.
    Wrong, wrong, wrong! Look at the demographics my young Tory friend!

    It's all heading in the wrong direction for the Tories...
    It is the middle aged 35 to 65 year olds the Tories need for a majority, the old always vote Tory and the young always vote Labour unless one wins a landslide
    I agree the Tories should focus on the 30 and 40-somethings, rather than overly obsess about millennials.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,071

    The Labour membership is actually far older and more southern than I'd thought.

    The percentages are interesting, but think of it in numbers. The Labour memberships in the South, the Midlands and the North individually are likely to be bigger than the UK-wide memberships of the Tories and the LibDems. If that becomes a well-organised machine, it could be pretty significant; but at the moment I wonder what percentage of the Labour membership is activist - ie attending meetings, doing canvassing etc - as compared to the other parties. I suspect the percentage is much lower.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 653
    The problem for the Tories here is the values that they now mostly represent (or the values of their voters) aren't necessarily tied to just being old, as much as the stock of 'old people' in Britain actually grows as a percentage of society those moving into the old category, or lets say 50+ which isn't too old, these new older people aren't as naturally tied to these values as most of the current group is.

    So whilst appealing to a shrinking but still sizable group right now they could well be polluting the future pool who may not see the Conservatives as their natural choice as much as the older people before them did. Not just declining home ownership or it coming later in life but the decline of newspapers will have an impact as well.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,493
    The Tories need to find a more flexible way of expanding their base, without making it gameable by £1 entryism. Which would be the obvious response by the Left on Twitter.

    There are enough people who support them in the country to do it.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 13,990
    Morning all,

    The truly shocking figure in all these numbers is the domination of all parties by ABC1 class.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    The members of any party are always going to be a tiny minority of the population -(as opposed to voters for parties). Its no surprise that most Tory members are older and more right wing and want a hard line on hanging and immigrants. Thats like finding that most Popes tend to be Catholic.

    The population however is aging. There are far more older -over 55s -in the population than under 25s, and therefore electorally the Tories have an advantage.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,054
    For me the most surprising point in these tables is that Labour doesn't draw more of its members from London - the same percentage (12%) as the Conservatives.

    More generally, what the survey shows is that party members don't reflect the views of those who vote for each party, or indeed in many cases the official party line. That's the case in several of the points highlighted, for example the death penalty for the Conservatives, Brexit for Labour.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,054
    I think I need to go and lie down. I've just read an article by Owen Jones with which I agree:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/03/stop-brexit-campaign-vote-leave-populist
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 1,902

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    Tory party faces a choice. Does it continue to modernise in pursuit if a broad, one nation pragmatic version of itself. Or does it prefer to become a more focused right wing ideological group.

    Can't do both.

    Under FPTP it can do the latter and get 40%+ and win most seats, especially when the alternative is Corbyn. The biggest movement of Tory voters since June, not that there has been much, has been to UKIP
    It might in the short term, but by doing so it would doom itself.

    In any event, the survey would be more interesting if it included a comparison with the opinions of the UK voters overall.
    Why? About 40% of the country is right-wing and 40% left-wing with 20% in the middle. With Labour taking a firmly left-wing position, if the Tories consolidate the right for themselves that still leaves room to appeal to the centre with the base secure given the altermative is Corbyn.
    It feels to me like our politics is going to become more American, and cultural, rather than economic.

    The Tories need to try and mitigate the concerns of those who are culturally at odds with them, and appeal to their economic competence. But, it will be very hard.
    Thanks to social changes that started in the 60s and the effects of immigration, the values spectrum is much wider than in the past. I think this cultural shift was therefore inevitable, but Brexit was the catalyst.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 900
    Conservatives are conservative. Who'da thunk it?

    Bringing back capital punishment is an extremist view, but then again so is expropriation of property - how many Labour members believe that property should be seized in the event of a housing crisis, eg after Grenfell? How many would ban second homes, or BTL landlords?

    How many Labour members believe in the complete renationalisation of all the utilities, with or without compensation? Or would support an effective tax rate of 90% (or even a total cap?) on earnings over 150k per annum?

    How many Lib Dem members believe that Brexit should be overturned without a second referendum? Or would still want it overturned even if a hypothetical second referendum were to take place and they lost, again.

    I've heard all these views espoused by Labour and Lib Dem members I know yet they're not under the microscope here. But extremists exist in all parties, and it's no surprise to learn that party members tend to have more extreme views one way or the other than the general public.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,071

    For me the most surprising point in these tables is that Labour doesn't draw more of its members from London - the same percentage (12%) as the Conservatives.

    More generally, what the survey shows is that party members don't reflect the views of those who vote for each party, or indeed in many cases the official party line. That's the case in several of the points highlighted, for example the death penalty for the Conservatives, Brexit for Labour.

    Worth remembering that it is 12% of 600,000 for Labour and 12% of maybe 130,000 for the Tories.

    I would be surprised if most Tory voters do not back the return of the death penalty given that a majority in the country does. Likewise, all the polling indicates that most Labour voters also voted Remain.

  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,129

    I think I need to go and lie down. I've just read an article by Owen Jones with which I agree:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/03/stop-brexit-campaign-vote-leave-populist

    no no no Richard

    they need Tony Blair giving us divine guidance on the subject from on high
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,463

    For me the most surprising point in these tables is that Labour doesn't draw more of its members from London - the same percentage (12%) as the Conservatives.

    More generally, what the survey shows is that party members don't reflect the views of those who vote for each party, or indeed in many cases the official party line. That's the case in several of the points highlighted, for example the death penalty for the Conservatives, Brexit for Labour.

    Morning Richard - hope you exhausted your piggy bank at Farr's - they had some great stuff on there.

    And interesting to hear about the '85 Las Cases - I bet it was fantastic!
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,129

    The Tories need to find a more flexible way of expanding their base, without making it gameable by £1 entryism. Which would be the obvious response by the Left on Twitter.

    There are enough people who support them in the country to do it.

    Honestly, I don't think if you did make Tory membership £5 "entriests" would cause much problem.

    The only meaningful national (can't see them turning up locally) vote is between the two "best" candidates. Let's imagine one is soft Brexit and hard Brexit. As a Labour superfan, do you really back the option you don't want just to spite the Tories?
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    The truest thing in politics as far as I am concerned is that any party's activists or members are always out of touch with the mainstream of public opinion. No party therefore should ever give too much power to its own members because if they do their party will be out of step with public opinion and will struggle to get elected. This is why the Tories do not promise at election times to bring back hanging -even though their own members want it.

    The problem with Labour at the moment is that its given too much power to its own members (as against MPs). These members have elected a leader that most voters do not want as PM, and driven the party far more leftwards than the voters want to go. This is why Labour will struggle to come to power again anytime soon.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,137

    I think I need to go and lie down. I've just read an article by Owen Jones with which I agree:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/03/stop-brexit-campaign-vote-leave-populist

    Danny Finkelstein wrote something very similar earlier this week.
    Although he managed to be a lot ruder about Lord Adonis, which was a bonus.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,493

    The Tories need to find a more flexible way of expanding their base, without making it gameable by £1 entryism. Which would be the obvious response by the Left on Twitter.

    There are enough people who support them in the country to do it.

    Honestly, I don't think if you did make Tory membership £5 "entriests" would cause much problem.

    The only meaningful national (can't see them turning up locally) vote is between the two "best" candidates. Let's imagine one is soft Brexit and hard Brexit. As a Labour superfan, do you really back the option you don't want just to spite the Tories?
    I think there'd be a bit of that, yes. I don't know if it would be decisive.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,054
    TOPPING said:

    For me the most surprising point in these tables is that Labour doesn't draw more of its members from London - the same percentage (12%) as the Conservatives.

    More generally, what the survey shows is that party members don't reflect the views of those who vote for each party, or indeed in many cases the official party line. That's the case in several of the points highlighted, for example the death penalty for the Conservatives, Brexit for Labour.

    Morning Richard - hope you exhausted your piggy bank at Farr's - they had some great stuff on there.

    And interesting to hear about the '85 Las Cases - I bet it was fantastic!
    I'm just looking at the list now. The Las Cases was indeed fantastic - the wine of the year for me. Still remarkably fruity, I wouldn't have put it as 30+ years old.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,071

    I think I need to go and lie down. I've just read an article by Owen Jones with which I agree:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/03/stop-brexit-campaign-vote-leave-populist

    You're not the only one.

    Richard Nabavi backing a Labour Brexit.

    Truly, this is the end of days.

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,054

    I think I need to go and lie down. I've just read an article by Owen Jones with which I agree:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/03/stop-brexit-campaign-vote-leave-populist

    You're not the only one.

    Richard Nabavi backing a Labour Brexit.

    Truly, this is the end of days.

    Well, I didn't agree with every word...
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,129

    The Tories need to find a more flexible way of expanding their base, without making it gameable by £1 entryism. Which would be the obvious response by the Left on Twitter.

    There are enough people who support them in the country to do it.

    Honestly, I don't think if you did make Tory membership £5 "entriests" would cause much problem.

    The only meaningful national (can't see them turning up locally) vote is between the two "best" candidates. Let's imagine one is soft Brexit and hard Brexit. As a Labour superfan, do you really back the option you don't want just to spite the Tories?
    I think there'd be a bit of that, yes. I don't know if it would be decisive.
    Let's say the Tories gain 100,000 members.

    Let's say at a push 1/3 are "core" Tories, 1/3 are "wet" Tories, and 1/3 are entryists.

    Turnout in 2006 was about 66%. Of course for entryists it will be different both higher and lower.

    If we take that, we get let's say 22,000 entryist votes. If they split 3:1 to a candidate, that's the equivalent of 11,000 votes.

    The margin last time was 70,000. You would really need a knife-edge election to make any difference.

    Personally I think it is a risk the Tories should take, sooner rather than later.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 13,990
    edited January 4
    stevef said:

    The members of any party are always going to be a tiny minority of the population -(as opposed to voters for parties). Its no surprise that most Tory members are older and more right wing and want a hard line on hanging and immigrants. Thats like finding that most Popes tend to be Catholic.

    The population however is aging. There are far more older -over 55s -in the population than under 25s, and therefore electorally the Tories have an advantage.

    The members of parties are not necessarily always going to be a tiny minority. 1950s saw mass party membership e.g. conservative of nearly 3 million!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,493
    kyf_100 said:

    Conservatives are conservative. Who'da thunk it?

    Bringing back capital punishment is an extremist view, but then again so is expropriation of property - how many Labour members believe that property should be seized in the event of a housing crisis, eg after Grenfell? How many would ban second homes, or BTL landlords?

    How many Labour members believe in the complete renationalisation of all the utilities, with or without compensation? Or would support an effective tax rate of 90% (or even a total cap?) on earnings over 150k per annum?

    How many Lib Dem members believe that Brexit should be overturned without a second referendum? Or would still want it overturned even if a hypothetical second referendum were to take place and they lost, again.

    I've heard all these views espoused by Labour and Lib Dem members I know yet they're not under the microscope here. But extremists exist in all parties, and it's no surprise to learn that party members tend to have more extreme views one way or the other than the general public.

    I'm at a loss as to how a second referendum takes place.

    It would require an Act of Parliament, which the current Government would not grant. It relies on 10 DUP'ers and at least 80 die-hard Brexit Tory MPs. The opposition would prioritise bringing it down over supporting a Government policy that its own backbenches don't support to make law. So it would have to fall in a no confidence vote, first, resulting in a General Election. Which Labour would then probably "win".

    I can't see how a second referendum, in autumn 2019, say, under a Corbyn minority/low majority Government (assuming he also grants one) on ambiguous Remain terms being won over the Heads of Terms May has negotiated that pipped to the post by 53% to 47%, say, would be anything but a disaster for the UK. It would poison relations for the UK in the EU, and divide the country very bitterly, for decades.

    The best hope for Remainers (as I keep banging on about) is to either get the EU to grant the UK a new deal that addresses the concerns of the Leavers, or to try and shape the Brexit result and hope, in time, the arrangements speak for themselves.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,071
    stevef said:

    The truest thing in politics as far as I am concerned is that any party's activists or members are always out of touch with the mainstream of public opinion. No party therefore should ever give too much power to its own members because if they do their party will be out of step with public opinion and will struggle to get elected. This is why the Tories do not promise at election times to bring back hanging -even though their own members want it.

    The problem with Labour at the moment is that its given too much power to its own members (as against MPs). These members have elected a leader that most voters do not want as PM, and driven the party far more leftwards than the voters want to go. This is why Labour will struggle to come to power again anytime soon.

    Sounds about right. But I'd argue that bringing back the death penalty may well be a net winner for the Tories.

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,409



    It feels to me like our politics is going to become more American, and cultural, rather than economic.

    The Tories need to try and mitigate the concerns of those who are culturally at odds with them, and appeal to their economic competence. But, it will be very hard.

    It will be now that Brexit has taken a massive diarrhetic shit, complete with sweetcorn and tomato skins, over the soi-disant economic competence.

    Pat Buchanan always used to tell Nixon that the lower down the socio-economic scale you go the more you have to tell people what you feel and the higher up the scale you go the more you have to tell them what you think.

    Fine tuning their message on that basis in the new culture wars is going to be impossible for the tories,
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,129

    stevef said:

    The members of any party are always going to be a tiny minority of the population -(as opposed to voters for parties). Its no surprise that most Tory members are older and more right wing and want a hard line on hanging and immigrants. Thats like finding that most Popes tend to be Catholic.

    The population however is aging. There are far more older -over 55s -in the population than under 25s, and therefore electorally the Tories have an advantage.

    The members of parties are not necessarily always going to be a tiny minority. 1950s saw mass party membership e.g. conservative of nearly 3 million!
    we ain't going back there any time soon.

    There won't be "Labour clubs" and Tory meetings like there used to be.

    No party can even imitate the youth wings of the 80s.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044

    stevef said:

    The members of any party are always going to be a tiny minority of the population -(as opposed to voters for parties). Its no surprise that most Tory members are older and more right wing and want a hard line on hanging and immigrants. Thats like finding that most Popes tend to be Catholic.

    The population however is aging. There are far more older -over 55s -in the population than under 25s, and therefore electorally the Tories have an advantage.

    The members of parties are not necessarily always going to be a tiny minority. 1950s saw mass party membership e.g. conservative of nearly 3 million!
    Which was small minority of the population. More than 90% were not party members.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,493
    RoyalBlue said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    Tory party faces a choice. Does it continue to modernise in pursuit if a broad, one nation pragmatic version of itself. Or does it prefer to become a more focused right wing ideological group.

    Can't do both.

    Under FPTP it can do the latter and get 40%+ and win most seats, especially when the alternative is Corbyn. The biggest movement of Tory voters since June, not that there has been much, has been to UKIP
    It might in the short term, but by doing so it would doom itself.

    In any event, the survey would be more interesting if it included a comparison with the opinions of the UK voters overall.
    Why? About 40% of the country is right-wing and 40% left-wing with 20% in the middle. With Labour taking a firmly left-wing position, if the Tories consolidate the right for themselves that still leaves room to appeal to the centre with the base secure given the altermative is Corbyn.
    It feels to me like our politics is going to become more American, and cultural, rather than economic.

    The Tories need to try and mitigate the concerns of those who are culturally at odds with them, and appeal to their economic competence. But, it will be very hard.
    Thanks to social changes that started in the 60s and the effects of immigration, the values spectrum is much wider than in the past. I think this cultural shift was therefore inevitable, but Brexit was the catalyst.
    I'm personally not convinced the population is that socially conservative; it's probably more about attitudes to rapid social change.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,129

    stevef said:

    The truest thing in politics as far as I am concerned is that any party's activists or members are always out of touch with the mainstream of public opinion. No party therefore should ever give too much power to its own members because if they do their party will be out of step with public opinion and will struggle to get elected. This is why the Tories do not promise at election times to bring back hanging -even though their own members want it.

    The problem with Labour at the moment is that its given too much power to its own members (as against MPs). These members have elected a leader that most voters do not want as PM, and driven the party far more leftwards than the voters want to go. This is why Labour will struggle to come to power again anytime soon.

    Sounds about right. But I'd argue that bringing back the death penalty may well be a net winner for the Tories.

    Among the general population, there is a majority for the death penalty for pedophiles and mass murderers.

    But it would take Labour to go to China, so to speak.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,809
    Mr. Royale, what if a deal is voted down in the Commons and the EU says we could still remain?
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,129

    RoyalBlue said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    Tory party faces a choice. Does it continue to modernise in pursuit if a broad, one nation pragmatic version of itself. Or does it prefer to become a more focused right wing ideological group.

    Can't do both.

    Under FPTP it can do the latter and get 40%+ and win most seats, especially when the alternative is Corbyn. The biggest movement of Tory voters since June, not that there has been much, has been to UKIP
    It might in the short term, but by doing so it would doom itself.

    In any event, the survey would be more interesting if it included a comparison with the opinions of the UK voters overall.
    Why? About 40% of the country is right-wing and 40% left-wing with 20% in the middle. With Labour taking a firmly left-wing position, if the Tories consolidate the right for themselves that still leaves room to appeal to the centre with the base secure given the altermative is Corbyn.
    It feels to me like our politics is going to become more American, and cultural, rather than economic.

    The Tories need to try and mitigate the concerns of those who are culturally at odds with them, and appeal to their economic competence. But, it will be very hard.
    Thanks to social changes that started in the 60s and the effects of immigration, the values spectrum is much wider than in the past. I think this cultural shift was therefore inevitable, but Brexit was the catalyst.
    I'm personally not convinced the population is that socially conservative; it's probably more about attitudes to rapid social change.
    It's something about opinion polls, I think. The reality is that nobody *does* anything to oppose same sex marriage, or advance the death penalty.*

    *Ok, I can think of one, Priti Patel. But that's it.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,688
    I don’t see why, in principle, you could not have a vote on the choice between whatever deal is negotiated and remaining in the EU (on our current terms? /new terms?), assuming the EU would agree to this (and @NickPalmer and others have suggested that the EU would be likely to agree if the UK changed its mind).

    When we voted in June 2016 we did not know what Brexit meant in reality. Soon we will. It is perfectly democratic to ask people whether they continue to want to leave the EU and move to this new arrangement.

    Now I realise that there are lots of assumptions and ifs in this and that getting from where we are to this point is not easy etc. But there is nothing inherently wrong in wanting a vote on the new arrangement.

    Indeed, isn’t it the mirror image of the vote which many say they wanted on Maastricht and Lisbon etc? Moving to a version of Brexit without clear support only risks storing up the same sort of resentments as agreeing to the various treaties did.

    Whether Blair / Clegg et al are the right people to do this is another matter as Jones argues. Still, I thought Humphries was too quick to interrupt Blair this morning. There is a dilemma at the heart of what May is trying to do and fudging or ignoring it won’t work, not for long anyway. Blair is right to point it out.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,413

    For me the most surprising point in these tables is that Labour doesn't draw more of its members from London - the same percentage (12%) as the Conservatives.

    More generally, what the survey shows is that party members don't reflect the views of those who vote for each party, or indeed in many cases the official party line. That's the case in several of the points highlighted, for example the death penalty for the Conservatives, Brexit for Labour.

    Worth remembering that it is 12% of 600,000 for Labour and 12% of maybe 130,000 for the Tories.

    I would be surprised if most Tory voters do not back the return of the death penalty given that a majority in the country does. Likewise, all the polling indicates that most Labour voters also voted Remain.

    It s NOT the case the the majority of voters back capital punishment. No down to below 50%

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,129

    For me the most surprising point in these tables is that Labour doesn't draw more of its members from London - the same percentage (12%) as the Conservatives.

    More generally, what the survey shows is that party members don't reflect the views of those who vote for each party, or indeed in many cases the official party line. That's the case in several of the points highlighted, for example the death penalty for the Conservatives, Brexit for Labour.

    Worth remembering that it is 12% of 600,000 for Labour and 12% of maybe 130,000 for the Tories.

    I would be surprised if most Tory voters do not back the return of the death penalty given that a majority in the country does. Likewise, all the polling indicates that most Labour voters also voted Remain.

    It s NOT the case the the majority of voters back capital punishment. No down to below 50%

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822
    A majority still support it for specific things:

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/3802
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,809
    Miss Cyclefree, not sure where (which is very helpful, I know) but I think I heard Laura Kuennsberg[sp] some time ago assert that if we changed our minds we'd lose all negotiated opt-outs, plus the rebate.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 689
    edited January 4

    The Labour membership is actually far older and more southern than I'd thought.

    More than that, the rate of Labour membership in the South of England outside London appears to be higher than the rate in London (1.7% of Labour's membership from each 1 million population in South, 1.5% in London). Perhaps the answer is in 2 other biases: 96/97% of party members are white across all parties Vs 87% white in the UK at large, 77-88% of every party's base is ABC1 against 53% of the population at large.

    I think it is the enduring whiteness of Labour membership that surprises me most here, given my impression that Pakistani Asians have a strong representation amongst Labour councillors.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,071

    For me the most surprising point in these tables is that Labour doesn't draw more of its members from London - the same percentage (12%) as the Conservatives.

    More generally, what the survey shows is that party members don't reflect the views of those who vote for each party, or indeed in many cases the official party line. That's the case in several of the points highlighted, for example the death penalty for the Conservatives, Brexit for Labour.

    Worth remembering that it is 12% of 600,000 for Labour and 12% of maybe 130,000 for the Tories.

    I would be surprised if most Tory voters do not back the return of the death penalty given that a majority in the country does. Likewise, all the polling indicates that most Labour voters also voted Remain.

    It s NOT the case the the majority of voters back capital punishment. No down to below 50%

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822

    That's encouraging. But I'd argue that of the 48% a disproportionate number would be older and right-leaning.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,870
    Cyclefree said:

    I don’t see why, in principle, you could not have a vote on the choice between whatever deal is negotiated and remaining in the EU (on our current terms? /new terms?), assuming the EU would agree to this (and @NickPalmer and others have suggested that the EU would be likely to agree if the UK changed its mind).

    You 'could' but that was not the deal on offer for the first EU referendum. The question for that referendum was 'Do you want to leave the EU?', not ' Do you want the UK government to negotiate a option to leave the EU which will be put to a second referendum?'.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,769

    Miss Cyclefree, not sure where (which is very helpful, I know) but I think I heard Laura Kuennsberg[sp] some time ago assert that if we changed our minds we'd lose all negotiated opt-outs, plus the rebate.

    An interesting choice - May's half-baked deal or full-fat EU: Euro, Schengen, the lot.

    Actually, I would be happier with the latter than our current fudged membership position.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 653
    stevef said:

    The truest thing in politics as far as I am concerned is that any party's activists or members are always out of touch with the mainstream of public opinion. No party therefore should ever give too much power to its own members because if they do their party will be out of step with public opinion and will struggle to get elected. This is why the Tories do not promise at election times to bring back hanging -even though their own members want it.

    The problem with Labour at the moment is that its given too much power to its own members (as against MPs). These members have elected a leader that most voters do not want as PM, and driven the party far more leftwards than the voters want to go. This is why Labour will struggle to come to power again anytime soon.

    On the evidence of the last few elections I think the Labour members rather than the majority of Labour MPs have been shown to be a better judge of what the public want. Not that they or Corbyn who they support are the greatest judge but I would argue the evidence seems to indicate they are a bit closer to what the electorate want than the last couple of Labour offerings.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 7,129

    Miss Cyclefree, not sure where (which is very helpful, I know) but I think I heard Laura Kuennsberg[sp] some time ago assert that if we changed our minds we'd lose all negotiated opt-outs, plus the rebate.

    An interesting choice - May's half-baked deal or full-fat EU: Euro, Schengen, the lot.

    Actually, I would be happier with the latter than our current fudged membership position.
    I'd give you odds of 5/1 on that being the outcome of such a referendum...
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,769
    Pro_Rata said:

    The Labour membership is actually far older and more southern than I'd thought.

    More than that, the rate of Labour membership in the South of England outside London appears to be higher than the rate in London (1.7% of Labour's membership from each 1 million population in South, 1.5% in London). Perhaps the answer is in 2 other biases: 96/97% of party members are white across all parties Vs 87% white in the UK at large, 77-88% of every party's base is ABC1 against 53% of the population at large.

    I think it is the enduring whiteness of Labour membership that surprises me most here, given my impression that Pakistani Asians have a strong representation amongst Labour councillors.

    Certain groups know how to play the system to get their preferred candidates selected to run for the council.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,355
    I am surprised to see Lib Dem members as the youngest of the selected parties - albeit not very young. I had the LDs down as an old person's party. Maybe the difference between members and supporters? The SNP can call on a youngish activist base when required.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,994
    edited January 4
    Cyclefree said:

    I don’t see why, in principle, you could not have a vote on the choice between whatever deal is negotiated and remaining in the EU (on our current terms? /new terms?), assuming the EU would agree to this (and @NickPalmer and others have suggested that the EU would be likely to agree if the UK changed its mind).

    When we voted in June 2016 we did not know what Brexit meant in reality. Soon we will. It is perfectly democratic to ask people whether they continue to want to leave the EU and move to this new arrangement.

    Now I realise that there are lots of assumptions and ifs in this and that getting from where we are to this point is not easy etc. But there is nothing inherently wrong in wanting a vote on the new arrangement.

    Indeed, isn’t it the mirror image of the vote which many say they wanted on Maastricht and Lisbon etc? Moving to a version of Brexit without clear support only risks storing up the same sort of resentments as agreeing to the various treaties did.

    Whether Blair / Clegg et al are the right people to do this is another matter as Jones argues. Still, I thought Humphries was too quick to interrupt Blair this morning. There is a dilemma at the heart of what May is trying to do and fudging or ignoring it won’t work, not for long anyway. Blair is right to point it out.

    Totally agree.It was a close call for me in 2O16 , changed my mind a few times before voting remain.At the time , I thought I was aware of all the possible outcomes, in reality this was not the case.I think as a nation we have more knowledge now , than ever before.Nevertheless the decision to leave has been made ,but I believe asking how the new arrangement should work , would be good for a mature democracy.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 20,654

    Miss Cyclefree, not sure where (which is very helpful, I know) but I think I heard Laura Kuennsberg[sp] some time ago assert that if we changed our minds we'd lose all negotiated opt-outs, plus the rebate.

    The problem would be that it would confirm that on EU-related matters, the only vote that's treated as being binding is one in favour of More Europe.
  • I'd summarise it as realist/cynic vs ideologue/clueless. All parties are full of people - both as members and voters - who don't have the slightest idea how the world works never mind how to get things done.

    In the past parties used to progress MPs with some experience who could at least steer the realist/cynic approach so that policy could be enacted that works. These days the parties seem largely infested by clueless ideologues who put their beliefs above evidence or experts. Which is how we end up in this endless cycle of either failing to make a decision (Heathrow anyone?) or making a decision that's beyond stupid for stupid reasons (we can't afford to build Nuclear Power, but the French can thanks to a guaranteed 100% markup on power generated)

    Brexit is merely the denouement of this trend. People want something. They don't know exactly what it is. They don't care either. But they want it, and woe betide anyone who gets in their way with questions about details as to how it would work. The abount of vacuous crap that has been written about how WTO would work is mind-blowing. Ignore the fact that the people who have to enact it say it would be a disaster with lots of details as to why and how, the same people keep banging on about how it'll be fine. Not contradicting the experts, just ignoring them.

    Is ignorance bliss?

  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,899
    Not sure this was such a cunning electoral stunt.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5234997

  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,792
    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I might be wrong but I don’t think opening new grammar schools were part of Labours policy - in fact I think they passed the legislation stopping new grammar schools from opening. Free schools obviously came in under Gove.

    Your figures on funding seem designed to obscure the simple fact that Labor increased spending on education significantly over their time in office.

    https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/fiscal_facts/public_spending_survey/education

    1) They didn't allow new grammars to open but existing ones massively expanded, at a time when the overall numbers of students was declining. So your first point is irrelevant.

    2) Labour did not 'massively increase spending'. They claimed they did but amazingly, they were not telling the truth (who'd have thought it, eh)? They made commitments on spending - almost invariably on teachers' pay - which they (a) announced up to four times and (b) did not then fund, leaving local authorities to make up the difference. Even if I accepted your view on their record on education spending - which I don't - I would point out that a rise of from 5% to 5.6% of GDP in over thirteen years is hardly 'massive,' and in 2000 that dipped as low as 4.5%.

    Far too many people take Labour's hype and spin at face value. As I say, I was shocked when I started burrowing into the details. It turned out to be all smoke and mirrors - and not many mirrors either.

    I have to go. Have a good morning.
    My point was that Labours policy was not to open new grammar schools and in future would not to be to open new grammar schools. Thatgrammar schools expanded is neither here nor there.

    If you look at the graph I linked - Labour presided over the steepest increase in real terms spending since at least 1953. In 1997 4.3% of GDP on education, by 2010 it was 5.8%. That is a really big increase in anyone’s book.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630

    Miss Cyclefree, not sure where (which is very helpful, I know) but I think I heard Laura Kuennsberg[sp] some time ago assert that if we changed our minds we'd lose all negotiated opt-outs, plus the rebate.

    An interesting choice - May's half-baked deal or full-fat EU: Euro, Schengen, the lot.

    Actually, I would be happier with the latter than our current fudged membership position.
    In which case Leave would go from 52% to close to 70% and the issue would be settled for good
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,792
    Cyclefree said:

    I don’t see why, in principle, you could not have a vote on the choice between whatever deal is negotiated and remaining in the EU (on our current terms? /new terms?), assuming the EU would agree to this (and @NickPalmer and others have suggested that the EU would be likely to agree if the UK changed its mind).

    When we voted in June 2016 we did not know what Brexit meant in reality. Soon we will. It is perfectly democratic to ask people whether they continue to want to leave the EU and move to this new arrangement.

    Now I realise that there are lots of assumptions and ifs in this and that getting from where we are to this point is not easy etc. But there is nothing inherently wrong in wanting a vote on the new arrangement.

    Indeed, isn’t it the mirror image of the vote which many say they wanted on Maastricht and Lisbon etc? Moving to a version of Brexit without clear support only risks storing up the same sort of resentments as agreeing to the various treaties did.

    Whether Blair / Clegg et al are the right people to do this is another matter as Jones argues. Still, I thought Humphries was too quick to interrupt Blair this morning. There is a dilemma at the heart of what May is trying to do and fudging or ignoring it won’t work, not for long anyway. Blair is right to point it out.

    No chance of selling that to leavers.
    It will be the great Brexit betrayal.
    But I think you’ve argued it well and I find myself unexpectedly agreeing with you.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630

    For me the most surprising point in these tables is that Labour doesn't draw more of its members from London - the same percentage (12%) as the Conservatives.

    More generally, what the survey shows is that party members don't reflect the views of those who vote for each party, or indeed in many cases the official party line. That's the case in several of the points highlighted, for example the death penalty for the Conservatives, Brexit for Labour.

    Worth remembering that it is 12% of 600,000 for Labour and 12% of maybe 130,000 for the Tories.

    I would be surprised if most Tory voters do not back the return of the death penalty given that a majority in the country does. Likewise, all the polling indicates that most Labour voters also voted Remain.

    It s NOT the case the the majority of voters back capital punishment. No down to below 50%

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822
    A majority still support it for specific things:

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/3802
    Yes, while support hovers around 50% for the death penalty for murder that rises to 69% supporting the death penalty for serial killers
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044

    stevef said:

    The truest thing in politics as far as I am concerned is that any party's activists or members are always out of touch with the mainstream of public opinion. No party therefore should ever give too much power to its own members because if they do their party will be out of step with public opinion and will struggle to get elected. This is why the Tories do not promise at election times to bring back hanging -even though their own members want it.

    The problem with Labour at the moment is that its given too much power to its own members (as against MPs). These members have elected a leader that most voters do not want as PM, and driven the party far more leftwards than the voters want to go. This is why Labour will struggle to come to power again anytime soon.

    On the evidence of the last few elections I think the Labour members rather than the majority of Labour MPs have been shown to be a better judge of what the public want. Not that they or Corbyn who they support are the greatest judge but I would argue the evidence seems to indicate they are a bit closer to what the electorate want than the last couple of Labour offerings.
    I think what the last few elections have shown is that the public no longer want a centrist Blairite Labour Party. They want a Labour Party a bit like it was under Harold Wilson or John Smith which offers a more radical alternative to the Tories. What Labour members did in 2015 however under the new method of choosing a leader which gave too much power to members, was to take Labour too far in the leftwards direction that it wants Labour to go. I dont think the public wants a Marxist chancellor, unilateral nuclear disarmament or too much tax and spend. I think this is the mistake that Labour is making and why it will lose again in 2022.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    edited January 4
    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I might be wrong but I don’t think opening new grammar schools were part of Labours policy - in fact I think they passed the legislation stopping new grammar schools from opening. Free schools obviously came in under Gove.

    Your figures on funding seem designed to obscure the simple fact that Labor increased spending on education significantly over their time in office.

    https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/fiscal_facts/public_spending_survey/education

    1) They didn't allow new grammars to open but existing ones massively expanded, at a time when the overall numbers of students was declining. So your first point is irrelevant.

    2) Labour did not 'massively increase spending'. They claimed they did but amazingly, they were not telling the truth (who'd have thought it, eh)? They made commitments on spending - almost invariably on teachers' pay - which they (a) announced up to four times and (b) did not then fund, leaving local authorities to make up the difference. Even if I accepted your view on their record on education spending - which I don't - I would point out that a rise of from 5% to 5.6% of GDP in over thirteen years is hardly 'massive,' and in 2000 that dipped as low as 4.5%.

    Far too many people take Labour's hype and spin at face value. As I say, I was shocked when I started burrowing into the details. It turned out to be all smoke and mirrors - and not many mirrors either.

    I have to go. Have a good morning.
    My point was that Labours policy was not to open new grammar schools and in future would not to be to open new grammar schools. Thatgrammar schools expanded is neither here nor there.

    If you look at the graph I linked - Labour presided over the steepest increase in real terms spending since at least 1953. In 1997 4.3% of GDP on education, by 2010 it was 5.8%. That is a really big increase in anyone’s book.
    Labour supported ballots to convert existing grammars to comprehensives if a petition with enough signatures demanded one e.g. a ballot was held on stopping selection for Ripon grammar school which was rejected
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,792
    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I might be wrong but I don’t think opening new grammar schools were part of Labours policy - in fact I think they passed the legislation stopping new grammar schools from opening. Free schools obviously came in under Gove.

    Your figures on funding seem designed to obscure the simple fact that Labor increased spending on education significantly over their time in office.

    https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/fiscal_facts/public_spending_survey/education

    1) They didn't allow new grammars to open but existing ones massively expanded, at a time when the overall numbers of students was declining. So your first point is irrelevant.

    2) Labour did not 'massively increase spending'. They claimed they did but amazingly, they were not telling the truth (who'd have thought it, eh)? They made commitments on spending - almost invariably on teachers' pay - which they (a) announced up to four times and (b) did not then fund, leaving local authorities to make up the difference. Even if I accepted your view on their record on education spending - which I don't - I would point out that a rise of from 5% to 5.6% of GDP in over thirteen years is hardly 'massive,' and in 2000 that dipped as low as 4.5%.

    Far too many people take Labour's hype and spin at face value. As I say, I was shocked when I started burrowing into the details. It turned out to be all smoke and mirrors - and not many mirrors either.

    I have to go. Have a good morning.
    My point was that Labours policy was not to open new grammar schools and in future would not to be to open new grammar schools. Thatgrammar schools expanded is neither here nor there.

    If you look at the graph I linked - Labour presided over the steepest increase in real terms spending since at least 1953. In 1997 4.3% of GDP on education, by 2010 it was 5.8%. That is a really big increase in anyone’s book.
    Labour supported ballots to convert existing grammars to comprehensives if a petition with enough signatures demanded one e.g. a ballot was held on stopping selection for Ripon grammar school which was rejected
    Which makes it all the more strange that when I said Labour wouldn’t open new grammar schools as the Tories plan to do - ydoethur tried to somehow argue that Labour would do this in future based on their past record under Blair.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,870
    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I don’t see why, in principle, you could not have a vote on the choice between whatever deal is negotiated and remaining in the EU (on our current terms? /new terms?), assuming the EU would agree to this (and @NickPalmer and others have suggested that the EU would be likely to agree if the UK changed its mind).

    When we voted in June 2016 we did not know what Brexit meant in reality. Soon we will. It is perfectly democratic to ask people whether they continue to want to leave the EU and move to this new arrangement.

    Now I realise that there are lots of assumptions and ifs in this and that getting from where we are to this point is not easy etc. But there is nothing inherently wrong in wanting a vote on the new arrangement.

    Indeed, isn’t it the mirror image of the vote which many say they wanted on Maastricht and Lisbon etc? Moving to a version of Brexit without clear support only risks storing up the same sort of resentments as agreeing to the various treaties did.

    Whether Blair / Clegg et al are the right people to do this is another matter as Jones argues. Still, I thought Humphries was too quick to interrupt Blair this morning. There is a dilemma at the heart of what May is trying to do and fudging or ignoring it won’t work, not for long anyway. Blair is right to point it out.

    No chance of selling that to leavers.
    It will be the great Brexit betrayal.
    But I think you’ve argued it well and I find myself unexpectedly agreeing with you.
    Maybe we should rejoin the EU if we had a 'cast iron' guarantee that there would be no further change in our status or rules/powers which the EU operated under.

    You see that thats issue, it's never can be a fixed position. the EU has morphed time and time again from the 1970s onwards, changing it's status and it's powers. Whilst governments may have signed up to each change, the people haven't.

    Now, the first time people have had a chance to say, 'hang on, we don't like this' we want out, you're planning on putting roadblock after roadblock in the way.

    the referendum wasn't lost in 2016, it was lost time and time again over the last 30 years when politicans haven't listened to people.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    edited January 4

    stevef said:

    The truest thing in politics as far as I am concerned is that any party's activists or members are always out of touch with the mainstream of public opinion. No party therefore should ever give too much power to its own members because if they do their party will be out of step with public opinion and will struggle to get elected. This is why the Tories do not promise at election times to bring back hanging -even though their own members want it.

    The problem with Labour at the moment is that its given too much power to its own members (as against MPs). These members have elected a leader that most voters do not want as PM, and driven the party far more leftwards than the voters want to go. This is why Labour will struggle to come to power again anytime soon.

    Sounds about right. But I'd argue that bringing back the death penalty may well be a net winner for the Tories.

    Among the general population, there is a majority for the death penalty for pedophiles and mass murderers.

    But it would take Labour to go to China, so to speak.
    Actually even death penalty backers only back it for murderers and terrorists.

    91% of them back capital punishment for murder, 68% for terrorists, 41% for paedophiles, 23% for rapists and 13% for drug dealers

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/apr/27/ukcrime13
  • stevef said:

    I think what the last few elections have shown is that the public no longer want a centrist Blairite Labour Party. They want a Labour Party a bit like it was under Harold Wilson or John Smith which offers a more radical alternative to the Tories. What Labour members did in 2015 however under the new method of choosing a leader which gave too much power to members, was to take Labour too far in the leftwards direction that it wants Labour to go. I dont think the public wants a Marxist chancellor, unilateral nuclear disarmament or too much tax and spend. I think this is the mistake that Labour is making and why it will lose again in 2022.

    The old "spending / investment is communism" attack from the Tories doesn't wash any more. People can touch and feel the need for spending in a large number of areas they interact with. Which is why the "spending has gone up" argument is so funny - government is haemorrhaging money yet front line spending in schools, NHS, social care, Police etc etc is cut to the bone.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,809
    Mr. F, indeed.

    Mr. Slackbladder, said before many times, but Labour (and the Lib Dems) reneging upon the 2005 manifesto pledge for a referendum did massive damage to the pro-EU side here.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,792
    On topic - I doubt many are surprised by the headlines on the composition of the Tory party.
    But others on here say that when it comes to picking a leader - the Tories prioritise a winner.
    Is there much evidence for that - either from this research or elsewhere?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,229
    HYUFD said:

    For me the most surprising point in these tables is that Labour doesn't draw more of its members from London - the same percentage (12%) as the Conservatives.

    More generally, what the survey shows is that party members don't reflect the views of those who vote for each party, or indeed in many cases the official party line. That's the case in several of the points highlighted, for example the death penalty for the Conservatives, Brexit for Labour.

    Worth remembering that it is 12% of 600,000 for Labour and 12% of maybe 130,000 for the Tories.

    I would be surprised if most Tory voters do not back the return of the death penalty given that a majority in the country does. Likewise, all the polling indicates that most Labour voters also voted Remain.

    It s NOT the case the the majority of voters back capital punishment. No down to below 50%

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822
    A majority still support it for specific things:

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/3802
    Yes, while support hovers around 50% for the death penalty for murder that rises to 69% supporting the death penalty for serial killers
    The only knockdown argument against the death penalty that I can see is the inevitable error rate under current evidential rules ("beyond reasonable doubt" is a long way from absolute certainty). If everyone wore personal bodycams, uploading in real time so there's no point in the murderer destroying or removing them, I'd be fairly relaxed about a string-em-up policy. Nothing more costly and pointless than prisons.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,630
    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I might be wrong but I don’t think opening new grammar schools were part of Labours policy - in fact I think they passed the legislation stopping new grammar schools from opening. Free schools obviously came in under Gove.

    Your figures on funding seem designed to obscure the simple fact that Labor increased spending on education significantly over their time in office.

    https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/fiscal_facts/public_spending_survey/education

    1) They didn't allow new grammars to open but existing ones massively expanded, at a time when the overall numbers of students was declining. So your first point is irrelevant.

    2) Labour did not 'massively increase spending'. They claimed they did but amazingly, they were not telling the truth (who'd have thought it, eh)? They made commitments on spending - almost invariably on teachers' pay - which they (a) announced up to four times and (b) did not then fund, leaving local authorities to make up the difference. Even if I accepted your view on their record on education spending - which I don't - I would point out that a rise of from 5% to 5.6% of GDP in over thirteen years is hardly 'massive,' and in 2000 that dipped as low as 4.5%.

    Far too many people take Labour's hype and spin at face value. As I say, I was shocked when I started burrowing into the details. It turned out to be all smoke and mirrors - and not many mirrors either.

    I have to go. Have a good morning.
    My point was that Labours policy was not to open new grammar schools and in future would not to be to open new grammar schools. Thatgrammar schools expanded is neither here nor there.

    If you look at the graph I linked - Labour presided over the steepest increase in real terms spending since at least 1953. In 1997 4.3% of GDP on education, by 2010 it was 5.8%. That is a really big increase in anyone’s book.
    Labour supported ballots to convert existing grammars to comprehensives if a petition with enough signatures demanded one e.g. a ballot was held on stopping selection for Ripon grammar school which was rejected
    Which makes it all the more strange that when I said Labour wouldn’t open new grammar schools as the Tories plan to do - ydoethur tried to somehow argue that Labour would do this in future based on their past record under Blair.
    Yes, Labour's default position then was that it would not open new grammars but it would not close them either without clear public support in the local area to end selection
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,355
    edited January 4
    Cyclefree said:

    I don’t see why, in principle, you could not have a vote on the choice between whatever deal is negotiated and remaining in the EU (on our current terms? /new terms?), assuming the EU would agree to this (and @NickPalmer and others have suggested that the EU would be likely to agree if the UK changed its mind).

    When we voted in June 2016 we did not know what Brexit meant in reality. Soon we will. It is perfectly democratic to ask people whether they continue to want to leave the EU and move to this new arrangement.

    Now I realise that there are lots of assumptions and ifs in this and that getting from where we are to this point is not easy etc. But there is nothing inherently wrong in wanting a vote on the new arrangement.

    Indeed, isn’t it the mirror image of the vote which many say they wanted on Maastricht and Lisbon etc? Moving to a version of Brexit without clear support only risks storing up the same sort of resentments as agreeing to the various treaties did.

    Whether Blair / Clegg et al are the right people to do this is another matter as Jones argues. Still, I thought Humphries was too quick to interrupt Blair this morning. There is a dilemma at the heart of what May is trying to do and fudging or ignoring it won’t work, not for long anyway. Blair is right to point it out.

    It was a stupid referendum and atrociously bad decision making when you reject an existing arrangement without seriously considering the alternatives. I would be happy never to have another referendum, But, given the absolute requirement to pursue a course of action however dumb, only another referendum can arguably countermand the first. The only circumstances in which that is viable in my opinion are where the electorate has collectively changed its mind and is looking for an out. In other words, a sizeable chunk of those that voted Leave now regret their decision. That hasn't happened yet in anything like sufficient numbers and it is unlikely to do so in the next year before the EU treaties lapse.

    We are where we are. Brexit needs a hard headed effort at damage limitation. Remainers can do that intellectually because they never signed up to the agenda in the first place. Leavers can't. Damage limitation implies things will be worse than they were and they should be and it implies Leavers were wrong to suggest otherwise. Leavers cannot limit the damage nor can they deliver a successful Brexit. It's a mess.

  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,792

    rkrkrk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I don’t see why, in principle, you could not have a vote on the choice between whatever deal is negotiated and remaining in the EU (on our current terms? /new terms?), assuming the EU would agree to this (and @NickPalmer and others have suggested that the EU would be likely to agree if the UK changed its mind).

    When we voted in June 2016 we did not know what Brexit meant in reality. Soon we will. It is perfectly democratic to ask people whether they continue to want to leave the EU and move to this new arrangement.

    Now I realise that there are lots of assumptions and ifs in this and that getting from where we are to this point is not easy etc. But there is nothing inherently wrong in wanting a vote on the new arrangement.

    Indeed, isn’t it the mirror image of the vote which many say they wanted on Maastricht and Lisbon etc? Moving to a version of Brexit without clear support only risks storing up the same sort of resentments as agreeing to the various treaties did.

    Whether Blair / Clegg et al are the right people to do this is another matter as Jones argues. Still, I thought Humphries was too quick to interrupt Blair this morning. There is a dilemma at the heart of what May is trying to do and fudging or ignoring it won’t work, not for long anyway. Blair is right to point it out.

    No chance of selling that to leavers.
    It will be the great Brexit betrayal.
    But I think you’ve argued it well and I find myself unexpectedly agreeing with you.
    Maybe we should rejoin the EU if we had a 'cast iron' guarantee that there would be no further change in our status or rules/powers which the EU operated under.

    You see that thats issue, it's never can be a fixed position. the EU has morphed time and time again from the 1970s onwards, changing it's status and it's powers. Whilst governments may have signed up to each change, the people haven't.

    Now, the first time people have had a chance to say, 'hang on, we don't like this' we want out, you're planning on putting roadblock after roadblock in the way.

    the referendum wasn't lost in 2016, it was lost time and time again over the last 30 years when politicans haven't listened to people.
    Such a guarantee would be ridiculous - it’s perfectly fine for the EU to evolve and there would be certain reforms the UK would want. What might address your concern is a commitment to have a regular referendum every xx years - but to be honest that sounds a big hassle.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,248
    The thing in The Sun today about postage stamps was a bit creepy. It's like living under occupation where the occupiers insist on ramming symbols of their Supreme Victory down the population's throats. What next: a monument to Brexit on every street corner? Thankfully the Royal Mail refused to get involved in divisive politics and told them where to stick it.
This discussion has been closed.