Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[Spamcan81]

Sadly, I think you are probably right.
However, I don’t get the impression that’s the view of many older Tory voters who have voted Conservative all their lives and are now disillusioned and find themselves in a position where it’s very difficult to know who to vote for or even if to vote at all.

Traditional centre right voters, of the type that in the past held the views of one nation conservative politicians such as Ken Clarke, feel totally alienated by the current Conservatives. Most of these people were also very strongly against Brexit. These are people who are Conservatives at heart, but many for the first time in their lives, even if somewhat begrudgingly, could vote for Labour.

Pretty much describes me. Voted Tory at every GE from 1974 to 2015. I can no longer vote for a party that took us out of the EU and is going ever further to the right. The sooner they are voted out of power the better.

 

[edwin_m]

Pretty much describes me. Voted Tory at every GE from 1974 to 2015. I can no longer vote for a party that took us out of the EU and is going ever further to the right. The sooner they are voted out of power the better.

If anyone wishes to express that view formally, there is a petition calling for a GE at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/641904

Won't make any difference of course.

 

[Gloster]

Won't make any difference of course.

As it has exceeded 100,000 signatures it will be considered for debate by the Petitions Committee. However, although most petitions that get sufficient signatures are debated unless they have been debated recently or are already timetabled for debate in the near future, there does not seem to be an absolute right for the petition to be debated. As the committee has six Conservatives (or five plus Scott Benton) amongst its ten members, I am sure they can find a reason to decline to debate it.

 

[The Ham]

As it has exceeded 100,000 signatures it will be considered for debate by the Petitions Committee. However, although most petitions that get sufficient signatures are debated unless they have been debated recently or are already timetabled for debate in the near future, there does not seem to be an absolute right for the petition to be debated. As the committee has six Conservatives (or five plus Scott Benton) amongst its ten members, I am sure they can find a reason to decline to debate it.

It depends on individual's views as to if an early election would be better personally for them than a later one.

Whilst this October has been fairly mild so far, other years it could be worse. If you know that you've got a lot of younger people, but still a core group of older voters (but a lot over, say, 75) if the weather is poor (rather wet and not warm) who may not be quite so inclined to vote in such conditions then as an MP you may fancy your chances with a spring/summer election much more than an Autumn one and certainly than a winter one.

The other thing to consider is that a lot of retired people take holidays outside of school holidays, as such they may already be aware of when some of their association members are likely to be away (in that we're away at a similar time recently) and so they may know that September would mean having fewer people around to go door knocking. This can be especially difficult as it's not uncommon for such trips to be longer than a week or two.

 

[ainsworth74]

Have it in May 2024 as that's traditional election time and it puts us back on the right cycle rather than having arguments about winter elections.

I don't think Rishi will do that of course. I've pencilled October 2024 into my mental diary but he should do it in May 24.

 

[jfollows]

Sadly, I think you are probably right.
However, I don’t get the impression that’s the view of many older Tory voters who have voted Conservative all their lives and are now disillusioned and find themselves in a position where it’s very difficult to know who to vote for or even if to vote at all.

Traditional centre right voters, of the type that in the past held the views of one nation conservative politicians such as Ken Clarke, feel totally alienated by the current Conservatives. Most of these people were also very strongly against Brexit. These are people who are Conservatives at heart, but many for the first time in their lives, even if somewhat begrudgingly, could vote for Labour.

I think that's going to be true for many; I always think of myself as a "traditional Tory voter" in that the principles of the party more closely align with my views than for other parties - low tax, individual liberty, personal responsibility.
However the Conservatives lost me last time round, in 1997, and I didn't vote for them then and I haven't voted for them since.
I was in my mid-30s at the time.
This next election is going to scoop up another tranche of voters. Amongst so many things, the culling of the "one nation" Conservatives as you mention was highly symbolic and showed that the party in power has changed radically. It's not about seeking consensus and trying to be inclusive, but instead to act radically and dogmatically and be prepared to break the law to get your own way.
The polls following the Conservative party conference show that the event didn't do the party any good, it's only going to be remembered for negative things - and symbolically the HS2 cancellation shows that nobody in Westminster cares about "levelling up" and Tories can't keep their promises.
There's always a large number of voters who would vote for a donkey if it had a blue rosette pinned to it, that's always been the case, but I suspect that the antics of the current party will have cut through to a greater percentage of these people, and it's been debated here and will continue to be debated but I think that just not having an incompetent opposition will be enough for the next election.

 

[The Ham]

There's always a large number of voters who would vote for a donkey if it had a blue rosette pinned to it, that's always been the case, but I suspect that the antics of the current party will have cut through to a greater percentage of these people

I suspect that the numbers who would vote for [insert name of party] regardless of the candidate is falling regardless of which party it is.

In part because of Brexit - or more importantly the way that parties could have a similar thought on something (say leaving the EU) but actually how that is fine could be significantly different from what they want.

Of course there are other factors, for example the older generations - for whom this was a more likely thing - are declining in number. Without the younger generations becoming more right wing as they age is also shifting the age demographics of the parties.

 

[jfollows]

Of course there are other factors, for example the older generations - for whom this was a more likely thing - are declining in number. Without the younger generations becoming more right wing as they age is also shifting the age demographics of the parties.

That makes me think also - I'm not disagreeing with you because it's clearly seen in the age demographics of support for the parties today, but anyone who assumes that people become more right wing as they age (and I'm not saying that you are doing so automatically) and makes policy decisions based on that could find they're seriously mistaken.
I mean, I can't predict how things will go in the next twenty years, and I also know that generalisations are valid, but I also know that I've become more "left wing" as I've aged. Supporting the Conservatives in the 1980s seemed obvious to me, and I did, but now I view them as too divisive and willing to give things to people who already have at the expense of those in our society who don't have enough.
So will today's Labour supporters move to support a future Conservative party automatically? I don't think so, however it'd be more likely than the other way round of course. So maybe that's it - other than few people like me people don't tend to go "right to left" whereas it's far more likely that people go "left to right" and that's enough to shift the general demographic.

 

[edwin_m]

That makes me think also - I'm not disagreeing with you because it's clearly seen in the age demographics of support for the parties today, but anyone who assumes that people become more right wing as they age (and I'm not saying that you are doing so automatically) and makes policy decisions based on that could find they're seriously mistaken.
I mean, I can't predict how things will go in the next twenty years, and I also know that generalisations are valid, but I also know that I've become more "left wing" as I've aged. Supporting the Conservatives in the 1980s seemed obvious to me, and I did, but now I view them as too divisive and willing to give things to people who already have at the expense of those in our society who don't have enough.
So will today's Labour supporters move to support a future Conservative party automatically? I don't think so, however it'd be more likely than the other way round of course. So maybe that's it - other than few people like me people don't tend to go "right to left" whereas it's far more likely that people go "left to right" and that's enough to shift the general demographic.

There seems to be some evidence that this is no longer so. Surveys of those currently middle-aged suggests they are moving rightwards much less than previous generations did at the same age.

 

[sor]

So will today's Labour supporters move to support a future Conservative party automatically? I don't think so, however it'd be more likely than the other way round of course. So maybe that's it - other than few people like me people don't tend to go "right to left" whereas it's far more likely that people go "left to right" and that's enough to shift the general demographic.

There's certainly an argument that the 60+ of today generally were well looked after by the tories in their early adult years and it is not surprising that so many have stayed with them, with the party adjusting to put them above everyone else. This seems to be where the "you get more conservative as you get older" comes from.

The generations that have had most or all of their adult life under the post 2010 tories have had deal with overpriced/unaffordable housing, essentially useless DC pensions, numerous "once in a generation" economic events, the downsides of Brexit and of course the climate crisis, so it's not surprising that they are largely not buying what the tories are offering. We reminisce about how things seemed to be less broken in the Labour years. Among my friends, even those who have overcome some of these problems (ie own a house) won't be giving the tories a look in - it's a choice between Labour or Lib Dem.

Have it in May 2024 as that's traditional election time and it puts us back on the right cycle rather than having arguments about winter elections.

I don't think Rishi will do that of course. I've pencilled October 2024 into my mental diary but he should do it in May 24.

I would also hope the calls for an election grow as we reach/go past May, as that's what the fixed term parliaments act originally mandated. Now repealed but it doesn't seem right to just add more months onto parliament by executive fiat.

 

[Merle Haggard]

There's certainly an argument that the 60+ of today generally were well looked after by the tories in their early adult years and it is not surprising that so many have stayed with them, with the party adjusting to put them above everyone else. This seems to be where the "you get more conservative as you get older" comes from.

!!!

I'm well over 60 but... 16% mortgages, manufacturing and mining annihilated, high unemployment, nationalised industries starved of investment during the Tory years when I was young. How was that being 'well looked after'?

 

[sor]

!!!

I'm well over 60 but... 16% mortgages, manufacturing and mining annihilated, high unemployment, nationalised industries starved of investment during the Tory years when I was young. How was that being 'well looked after'?

house prices as a proportion of income were much lower than today, high interest rates were blips and there was MIRAS (brought in by... the Thatcher govt) to soften it even further. If you had a council house you could RTB it too, at a discount. And of course if you kept your house throughout you're quids in today, you can sell it to a young person who will have none of those advantages.

As for mining and industry - yes, everyone's as confused as to why the former so called "red wall" embraced the 2019 tories with such gusto given what they did there - but your Home Counties types in the 80s wouldn't have been too fussed about what was going on elsewhere

 

[Gloster]

There is speculation that Marina Wheeler KC, a specialist in employment law, is to act as an adviser to Labour on how to protect women against harassment in the workplace. Ms Wheeler was formerly the second Mrs Boris Johnson.

 

[jfollows]

!!!

I'm well over 60 but... 16% mortgages, manufacturing and mining annihilated, high unemployment, nationalised industries starved of investment during the Tory years when I was young. How was that being 'well looked after'?

We had our own issues at the time.
I bought my first house at the end of 1985, I think, at the age of 24, and looked back then with interest in how much "worse off" we were than people who bought houses a few years earlier. But we managed, and the end result of house ownership can often be total ownership with no mortgage in later life.
However I didn't give any credit to the government of the time for the circumstances, nor did I hold it against them. It was what it was.

 

[Merle Haggard]

house prices as a proportion of income were much lower than today, high interest rates were blips and there was MIRAS to soften it even further. If you had a council house you could RTB it too, at a discount. And of course if you kept your house throughout you're quids in today, you can sell it to a young person who will have none of those advantages.

As for mining and industry - yes, everyone's as confused as to why the former so called "red wall" embraced the 2019 tories with such gusto given what they did there - but your Home Counties types in the 80s wouldn't have been too fussed about what was going on elsewhere

But mortgage repayments as a proportion of income were high, which is what matters. I had a 3.25 x income mortgage (the maximum at that time) and at the high point two-thirds of my take home pay went on mortgage repayments. If you take 'high interest rates' as being mortgages > 8% my recollection is that was most of the time I had a mortgage - didn't realise so much of my lifetime was just a blip...

I could take up your suggestion, of course, and sell my house to crystallise the underserved financial gain. Just one little problem though; where would I live?

 

[renegademaster]

good - hope they add vapes to that list also.

Vaping will probably stop an illegal tobacco trade popping up in response to the ban , but should they go for younger people too, then less scrupulous 40 year olds will be making a lot of money selling cigs to 20 year olds

So... people will start smoking in protest?

No but criminal elements will start getting money for younger people who want to smoke, like what's currently happening with weed. You already do kinda have the problem with Eastern European cigarette smuggling gangs as a result of duty

 

[sor]

But mortgage repayments as a proportion of income were high, which is what matters. I had a 3.25 x income mortgage (the maximum at that time) and at the high point two-thirds of my take home pay went on mortgage repayments. If you take 'high interest rates' as being mortgages > 8% my recollection is that was most of the time I had a mortgage - didn't realise so much of my lifetime was just a blip...

I could take up your suggestion, of course, and sell my house to crystallise the underserved financial gain. Just one little problem though; where would I live?

All that matters is that house prices as a proportion of income were much lower in your time. You didn't spend much of your adult life having to chase an ever increasing deposit as prices increased well beyond inflation year on year (it's now at around 10x average income, fwiw). You didn't lock in a lifetime of high mortgage repayments from day one, if you could even get a mortgage. You had a government that softened the brief interest rate blips with tax relief. You had a government that wasn't as offensively NIMBY as we have now.

Without dragging this into a debate over who had it toughest, the point still stands - the 80s Tories did a lot more for home ownership and personal wealth (even if it was through oil funded tax breaks and selling off state assets on the cheap) than today's lot - and that's likely why so many of today's pensioners are firmly team blue and so many of today's youth are ABC.

 

[najaB]

No but criminal elements will start getting money for younger people who want to smoke, like what's currently happening with weed. You already do kinda have the problem with Eastern European cigarette smuggling gangs as a result of duty

There might be an issue, but people smoke weed to get high. There's no real 'high' with tobacco so it's much less attractive.

 

[renegademaster]

There might be an issue, but people smoke weed to get high. There's no real 'high' with tobacco so it's much less attractive.

A ton of my schoolmates (mainly girls) seemed to smoke despite it being illegal for them to do so, now vaping is very popular nowadays. And the same people pushing for this ban are pushing the same thing for vaping

 

[jfollows]

A ton of my schoolmates (mainly girls) seemed to smoke despite it being illegal for them to do so, now vaping is very popular nowadays. And the same people pushing for this ban are pushing the same thing for vaping

Politicians love to pass unenforceable laws in order to get credit for "doing something". So laws on smoking in cars with children present. Excessive and unenforced speed limits on top of existing sensible speed limits. A lot of this smoking "stuff" is going to fall into this category. I'm against it, not because I'm a rabid Tory, but because I'm tired with politicians interfering in peoples' lives in order to look good.

Plus anything called "XXXX's law" is probably wrong; either it is something that should be done and is completely justifiable in its own right, or else it's a knee-jerk response to something which was probably terrible and shouldn't be legal but was probably a one-off thing.

 

[Yew]

Politicians love to pass unenforceable laws in order to get credit for "doing something". So laws on smoking in cars with children present. Excessive and unenforced speed limits on top of existing sensible speed limits. A lot of this smoking "stuff" is going to fall into this category. I'm against it, not because I'm a rabid Tory, but because I'm tired with politicians interfering in peoples' lives in order to look good.

Plus anything called "XXXX's law" is probably wrong; either it is something that should be done and is completely justifiable in its own right, or else it's a knee-jerk response to something which was probably terrible and shouldn't be legal but was probably a one-off thing.

Passing a poorly thought-out illiberal law looks decisive, generates a good headline, and most importantly doesn't cost anything.

 

[DoubleLemon]

The guardian reporting the projects announced on the gov.uk website to use the hs2 money were just examples.

HS2: announced transport projects were just ‘examples’, says minister

Documents detailing projects to be funded with savings from scrapping HS2 deleted from government website

www.theguardian.com

 

[jon0844]

At this point, they don't care that we know they know we know.

 

[birchesgreen]

They got their favourable headlines in the right wing tabloid press, all they care about really.

 

[jon0844]

Problem is that when you go for the populist votes, and say that you're the voice of the silent majority, you find up at election time that the majority isn't the majority.

You can fake support on social media and right-wing TV channels, but not at the ballot box.

 

[Gloster]

You can fake support on social media and right-wing TV channels, but not at the ballot box.

So why not change the rules to make it as difficult as possible for people who don’t support you to vote? So much easier than actually solving problems.

 

[uglymonkey]

The elections are always won or lost on about 8 or 9 key marginals. Whose swing decides the result. In my own consistency I know that no matter how many people vote, the sitting MP will always be returned. They have the job until they either retire or die. Its therefore pointless voting, you are just wasting half an hour of your time. You either give the MP one vote or vote for one of the other candidates, the result stays the same. Maybe this reason is one of the reasons for a low turnout people realise their votes dont make a jot of difference one way or the other.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

The elections are always won or lost on about 8 or 9 key marginals. Whose swing decides the result. In my own consistency I know that no matter how many people vote, the sitting MP will always be returned. They have the job until they either retire or die. Its therefore pointless voting, you are just wasting half an hour of your time. You either give the MP one vote or vote for one of the other candidates, the result stays the same. Maybe this reason is one of the reasons for a low turnout people realise their votes dont make a jot of difference one way or the other.

Which is why it’s about time that Labour revisited the Proportional Vote question. I suspect many people will now see the benefit of actual democracy that it brings, rather than the current sham arrangement.

 

[takno]

The elections are always won or lost on about 8 or 9 key marginals. Whose swing decides the result. In my own consistency I know that no matter how many people vote, the sitting MP will always be returned. They have the job until they either retire or die. Its therefore pointless voting, you are just wasting half an hour of your time. You either give the MP one vote or vote for one of the other candidates, the result stays the same. Maybe this reason is one of the reasons for a low turnout people realise their votes dont make a jot of difference one way or the other.

Even in the least interesting elections there are rarely less than a couple of hundred seats in play, which is rather more than 8 or 9. Taking a longer view there are only perhaps 200 seats which haven't changed over the past 25 years. If you stay at home because the result of this election is a foregone conclusion then you are dooming yourself to being in the same position at the next election, where voting may lead to a heavily reducesd majority and a greater chance of the seat being in play at the next election.

Half an hour every 4 years or so doesn't seem like a massive amount of time, even if it is "wasted"

 

[uglymonkey]

Ok, I take your point, but in my seat, hell would freeze over before the seat changed hands