Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[jfollows]

Over 65s voted 64-17 in favour of the Conservatives in 2019, and poll now something like 35-25 in favour of the Conservatives still.
But I don’t think many under-65s are “converting” to the Conservative cause as they get older. I think the Conservative-supporting cohort is getting older and, frankly, dying.
As mentioned above, this is good for Labour in terms of getting re-elected in five years; I’m pretty convinced they can’t lose the next election.
From https://www.statista.com/statistics/1379439/uk-election-polls-by-age/:
Voting intentions in a general election in the United Kingdom in January 2024, by age group

 

[Typhoon]

Over 65s voted 64-17 in favour of the Conservatives in 2019, and poll now something like 35-25 in favour of the Conservatives still.
But I don’t think many under-65s are “converting” to the Conservative cause as they get older. I think the Conservative-supporting cohort is getting older and, frankly, dying.
As mentioned above, this is good for Labour in terms of getting re-elected in five years; I’m pretty convinced they can’t lose the next election.
From https://www.statista.com/statistics/1379439/uk-election-polls-by-age/:
Voting intentions in a general election in the United Kingdom in January 2024, by age group
View attachment 151267

My slight reservation would be (from the website)

Supplementary notes
Results have been weighted by likelihood to vote and excludes those who would not vote, don't know or refused.

That won't have affected the graph but the figures for these would have been interesting. I reckon participation will be down, maybe significantly, on the last couple of elections. I cannot think of the last election when I would be confident that voters would say that they were not displeased with the performance of the government that followed.

Just for information. the poll states that it was conducted in Great Britain, that is why, I guess, Northern Ireland parties are not listed.

 

[nw1]

My slight reservation would be (from the website)

That won't have affected the graph but the figures for these would have been interesting. I reckon participation will be down, maybe significantly, on the last couple of elections. I cannot think of the last election when I would be confident that voters would say that they were not displeased with the performance of the government that followed.

I'm not so sure - as I suspect a lot of people are keen to get the Tories out ASAP.

I think it'll be down on 2019 (turnout was relatively high because that election was so polarising) but possibly up on 2015 and 2017.

 

[Richard Scott]

I'm not so sure - as I suspect a lot of people are keen to get the Tories out ASAP.

I think it'll be down on 2019 (turnout was relatively high because that election was so polarising) but possibly up on 2015 and 2017.

The issue is the alternative isn't really any better!

 

[nw1]

I'm with you on that in that I had no serious political views until I went to university and left home in 1980, my parents were centre-right Guardian readers and my dad supported the SDP in due course, but I didn't feel as if I could have my own views when I was at home.
Once I'd left I realised I agreed with a lot that the Conservatives were doing, and voted for them in the 1980s and would have voted for John Major in 1992 except I was abroad.
However 1997 was like the next election will be, nobody in their right mind will vote Conservative and I certainly didn't then.
I then voted LibDem because I didn't trust Blair or Brown, and the Conservatives went gradually bonkers.
I might have voted Conservative in 2017, ironically, because I thought Theresa May was making the best of a bad job, but my candidate for MP became Esther McVey so I couldn't vote for her.
In 2019 I voted for anyone likely to defeat Boris Johnson, and will vote tactically against the Conservatives again next time.
I don't think I've changed, I'm kind-of middle-ground Conservative, but all the MPs I admired were sacked by Boris Johnson and I don't think much of the remaining ones.
I've become more radical over my life since university, because I feel that society has more of a duty of care towards those less fortunate than me.

Interesting as I too developed my lasting political views during the first term of the first year at university. I remember having an argument with my dad about the band Erasure (he was rather homophobic, if I am honest) when returning for Christmas and I remember the family remarking that they thought I had turned markedly leftwards as I wouldn't have picked an argument on the matter beforehand. Which I had in other ways, though standing up for gay rights is of course extremely centrist.

I think the poll tax was one of the pivotal things which governed my adult political beliefs. I took a dislike to the Tories in that era and it's never gone away. I was strongly pro-Labour in 1992 though I became more cynical later - though have always seen them as much better than the Tories.

As for my pre-university political beliefs, ironically in 1987 (when I couldn't vote) I disliked Labour for some reason though I would probably have voted Alliance, not Thatcher, had I been allowed to vote. Probably the anti-Labour thing was listening to my (very, very opinionated) dad too much; I wasn't yet old enough to think about things properly.

The issue is the alternative isn't really any better!

Up for debate; for quite a few of us, it is considerably better.

 

[Richard Scott]

Up for debate; for quite a few of us, it is considerably better.

I hope you're right but the cynic in me is willing to bet it won't be. Afraid I don't trust Starmer either or his merry crowd.

 

[najaB]

The issue is the alternative isn't really any better!

Even marginally better is better.

 

[nw1]

Even marginally better is better.

I doubt Starmer will start or promote culture wars and that alone is reason to prefer him.

 

[najaB]

I doubt Starmer will start or promote culture wars and that alone is reason to prefer him.

Oh, I personally expect that a Labour government under Starmer will be head and shoulders above our current one.

 

[Thirteen]

Oh, I personally expect that a Labour government under Starmer will be head and shoulders above our current one.

I think and hope we're heading for a period of boring politics which is not a bad thing.

 

[Typhoon]

The issue is the alternative isn't really any better!

That isn't the issue, it is whether voters think that the alternative is going to be better.

That is why, if Labour do get in, they need to show from the word go, that they are. It will be up to each and every Labour MP to show that. No infighting, No dodgy dealing, No one rule for them ..., no doling out honours like confetti, no false promises. owning up when they have messed up.

As we approach the election there will be sections of the media who will suggest that all politicians are the same so why not stick with the useless idiots well-meaning but misguided individuals we have at the moment, who knows they might dump Sunak for someone even more right-wing better,

I think and hope we're heading for a period of boring politics which is not a bad thing.

Absolutely. One of the worst things that happened to Labour in my life time was the death of John Smith. We'd have had none of Blair's cosying up to big business/ other governments/ celebs in the way he did. I don't remember too much about it, but I am told Attlee was pretty dull too.

 

[Richard Scott]

Oh, I personally expect that a Labour government under Starmer will be head and shoulders above our current one.

Afraid the cynic in me thinks that's unlikely. Again, I do hope I'm wrong.

 

[edwin_m]

Afraid the cynic in me thinks that's unlikely. Again, I do hope I'm wrong.

Even in opposition Labour has been far less prone to indulging in culture wars and the sort of populist blame-the-other that the Tories have been doing. There are some unfortunate exceptions on the left of the party but by and large there's a clear difference in behaviour.

 

[DoubleLemon]

He is very good at shooting them down, however I suspect that the targets are specifically picked out to make good listening / viewing.

When they can't even describe what they mean by the words and slogans they spout, or answer simple questions to clarify thier point then they deserve what they get.

It says a lot about people who don't like him because he actually asks people to explain why and what they mean. I wonder do you complain about those shouting down the left leaning guests on gb news?

 

[The Ham]

The issue is the alternative isn't really any better!

I'm intrigued to understand why you think this?

 

[Richard Scott]

I'm intrigued to understand why you think this?

To be honest I don't trust Starmer. He does nothing to instill any confidence, my personal opinion. Like I said before I hope I'm wrong but willing to have discussion in 5 years time and, if Labour do get in, also willing to bet we will be no better off.

 

[Pete_uk]

It's going to take time that's for sure

 

[brad465]

Next up in the "Westminster bubble" series:

George Freeman quit as minister as he 'couldn't afford' mortgage

George Freeman says he could not afford the repayments, despite a salary of £118,300.

www.bbc.co.uk

A Tory MP said he quit his ministerial role because he could not afford to pay his mortgage on a salary of £118,300.
Mid Norfolk MP George Freeman resigned as science minister in November.
In a blog post, he said he stood down: "Because my mortgage rises this month from £800pcm to £2,000, which I simply couldn't afford to pay on a ministerial salary."
Downing Street said it had "no plans to change our approach to ministerial pay".
Mr Freeman, who resigned amid Rishi Sunak's cabinet reshuffle, added: "We're in danger of making politics something only hedge fund donors, young spin doctors and failed trade unionists can afford to do."
A Norfolk MP since 2010, he held ministerial posts in successive Conservative governments and pocketed severance payments after departing.
He received £7,920 when he quit Boris Johnson's government in July 2022, before returning to his role as science minister under Mr Sunak, some 16 weeks later, according to Labour analysis.
Ministers under the age of 65 are entitled to a loss-of-office payment amounting to a quarter of their ministerial salary if they leave their role and are not appointed to a new one within three weeks.
Mr Freeman, who spent more than a decade in the life sciences and technology sectors before entering Parliament, will be able to make more money outside of government.
On top of his MP's salary of £86,584, he is free to take on second jobs, subject to approval by anti-corruption watchdog the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments.

 

[dangie]

To be honest I don't trust Starmer. He does nothing to instill any confidence, my personal opinion. Like I said before I hope I'm wrong but willing to have discussion in 5 years time and, if Labour do get in, also willing to bet we will be no better off.

I'd hazard a guess that in five years time, worldwide, very few people will be better off than they are now.

 

[Gloster]

Next up in the "Westminster bubble" series:

George Freeman quit as minister as he 'couldn't afford' mortgage

George Freeman says he could not afford the repayments, despite a salary of £118,300.

www.bbc.co.uk

Could somebody explain the maths of this. £118,300-£86,584 = £31,716. £2,000-£800 = £1,200: multiply that by 12 (months in the year) = £14,400 increase. So he thinks that giving up a post that gives him £31,716 extra will make it easier to pay an increase in his mortgage of less than half that (a simplification, I acknowledge). Surely it couldn’t be that he can now hawk himself around the various Conservative-friendly businesses for a well-paid job, something that he couldn’t do as a minister. Or, something that I am sure he would advise poorer constituents in difficulties to do, why not get a smaller house? (Remember, one house is probably paid for by us.)

And a last thought: which party cacked up the economy and caused costs to go up so much? Answers on a post card, which the Royal Mail will lose, to Tufton Street.

 

[SteveM70]

Could somebody explain the maths of this. £118,300-£86,584 = £31,716. £2,000-£800 = £1,200: multiply that by 12 (months in the year) = £14,400 increase. So he thinks that giving up a post that gives him £31,716 extra will make it easier to pay an increase in his mortgage of less than half that (a simplification, I acknowledge). Surely it couldn’t be that he can now hawk himself around the various Conservative-friendly businesses for a well-paid job, something that he couldn’t do as a minister. Or, something that I am sure he would advise poorer constituents in difficulties to do, why not get a smaller house? (Remember, one house is probably paid for by us.)

And a last thought: which party cacked up the economy and caused costs to go up so much? Answers on a post card, which the Royal Mail will lose, to Tufton Street.

His point is that he already has the ministerial salary, so the mortgage increase is a real cost increase to him, which he can more than offset (as you suggest) by losing the ministerial premium and tarting himself to business as an advisor or whatever

(Also, your initial maths ignores the 40% tax on the ministerial salary, so the gap isn't as you suggest)

But as for the optics of this at a time like this.....spectacularly bad

 

[sor]

The other angle is that it potentially starts the clock on any ACOBA restrictions that might be placed on him - might as well let it run while you have "only" an MPs salary instead of in May or October or whenever they plan to have an election.

 

[oldman]

To be honest I don't trust Starmer. He does nothing to instill any confidence, my personal opinion. Like I said before I hope I'm wrong but willing to have discussion in 5 years time and, if Labour do get in, also willing to bet we will be no better off.

You constantly talk Starmer and Labour down, without giving any particular reasons, just your personal opinion mind you, and of course you hope you're wrong.

 

[Richard Scott]

You constantly talk Starmer and Labour down, without giving any particular reasons, just your personal opinion mind you, and of course you hope you're wrong.

It is my personal opinion, probably like most people's political opinion.
I don't trust him with economy any more than current bunch, I really didn't like his stance during epidemic and felt he'd gave locked us down for longer hence. He was even worse than Boris for going with popularist option over this and it really put me off so that's why.
I hope I'm wrong that he won't be any good as if he does get in I don't want country going any more downhill than the next person.
So please enlighten me as to why he will be so good.

 

[najaB]

It is my personal opinion, probably like most people's political opinion.

Nothing wrong with that. At least, unlike some, you admit that it's just an opinion.

 

[takno]

It is my personal opinion, probably like most people's political opinion.
I don't trust him with economy any more than current bunch, I really didn't like his stance during epidemic and felt he'd gave locked us down for longer hence. He was even worse than Boris for going with popularist option over this and it really put me off so that's why.
I hope I'm wrong that he won't be any good as if he does get in I don't want country going any more downhill than the next person.
So please enlighten me as to why he will be so good.

I didn't much like his stance in the pandemic either, but for all his bluster Boris's reluctance to go into lockdown and general stroppiness achieved absolutely nothing. It's quite possible that by taking a more sensible-sounding tone from the off Starmer could actually have avoided some of the stupider situations we ended up getting sucked into.

The fundamental point is that Starmer doesn't actually have to be good, he just has to be better than the current lot, who are profoundly and astonishingly terrible.

 

[The Ham]

And a last thought: which party cacked up the economy and caused costs to go up so much? Answers on a post card, which the Royal Mail will lose, to Tufton Street.

That's got be Labour, everything else is their fault!?!?

 

[43096]

The fundamental point is that Starmer doesn't actually have to be good, he just has to be better than the current lot, who are profoundly and astonishingly terrible.

So you want a PM that is bad but not terrible? Talk about low expectations!

 

[dgl]

We have to remember that with the state of the economy Starmer will not have some sort of magic wand that will fix everything, so on that point alone he might not be seen as a great PM.
Starmers' big advantages are that he probably won't simply pander to sections of his party to shut them up and unlike Sunak it's not just his age that makes him an adult!

 

[Falcon1200]

To be honest I don't trust Starmer. He does nothing to instill any confidence, my personal opinion.

With which I agree, absolutely.

You constantly talk Starmer and Labour down, without giving any particular reasons,

I do not, and never will, trust Starmer, thanks to his unwavering support for Corbyn as, ludicrously, leader of the Labour Party, and even more ludicrously, to become PM. What else could he have done, has been asked? Refused to serve as a senior member of Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and made it clear that he was, as a backbencher, campaigning for a Party rather than Leader victory.

Having said that, I will (probably) still vote Labour at the net General Election! Sadly for the least worst option rather than the best; I do not believe that Sunak is a bad, (or despite being a Tory, an evil) man, but his treatment of the railways, and his ongoing support for the Rwanda plan, in particular, make it very difficult for me to vote for his Party.