chairman bill wrote:Well if you offer them a radical change from the way politics here is usually done, who knows? A large proportion of those new Labour Party members are young people, so something has enthused them enough to get more seriously involved.

Yes it's heartening to see lots of young people joining the Labour Party. Even better if many of them have come from the non-voting group and can enthuse other non-voters. The under 25s tend to vote Labour more than for other parties too so they're an important group for Labour activism. They're not a large group compared to the over 25s though so gaining their votes isn't enough (not that I'm suggesting you think that).

But there are over 25s joining too.

chairman bill wrote:But there are over 25s joining too.

Yes I think there are people joining from across the age groups but as you say, a large proportion are young people and as you were replying to Scot's post about non-voters under 25, I assumed you meant them.

Who cares who joins cults which any political party is. It doesn't really matter if the Labour has a thousand or a million members through some millionaire donations can come in handy.

What counts isn't how the people you normally associate with think its how the people you hate, the people you would normally cross the road to avoid. They are the people who you need to attract not 21 year students or union workers who would vote for a green or red cabbage whatever name is on it

Emmeline wrote:

OlivierK wrote:

Emmeline wrote:@Olivier

None of those people you linked to are saying that "Labour's only path to re-election is to win middle-class votes from the Tories."

The Tories have taken votes from previous Labour voters and Labour has to win them back but it's not the ONLY thing they have to do and nobody is saying that it is.

Sure, but everyone is saying it's necessary, and of primary importance. It not necessarily of primary importance, and it might not even be necessary.

How else are Labour going to win the marginal seats they need to win an election?

Well, look at the famous Nuneaton: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuneaton_ ... nstituency)#Election_in_2015

The Tories won 45.5% (to Labour's 35%) of the vote on 67.2% turnout, or 30.5% of the electorate. So there are plenty of ways to win the seat without targetting Tory voters, but instead building their own credibility as a party that stands for something.

I'm not suggesting, either, that Labour should try NOT to win votes from the Tories. Naturally every vote they can claw back is valuable. Personally, though, I'd rather that instead of trying to be what those Tory voters voted for in 2015, they actually tried to change their minds, by pointing out the damage the Tories are doing to the country and its people, and offering something better. I feel a bit wearied by the thought that this is apparently now viewed as some sort of radical strategy.

mrjonno wrote:Who cares who joins cults which any political party is. It doesn't really matter if the Labour has a thousand or a million members through some millionaire donations can come in handy.

What counts isn't how the people you normally associate with think its how the people you hate, the people you would normally cross the road to avoid. They are the people who you need to attract not 21 year students or union workers who would vote for a green or red cabbage whatever name is on it

All of the electorate have a single vote. It doesn't matter who you know, hate, will never meet, or have some made up pre-conception about. What matters is making sure people are registered to vote and are engaged enough to do so.

All of the electorate have a single vote.

Only in theory, in practice most people's votes (including mine) don't count for jack

OlivierK wrote:

Emmeline wrote:

OlivierK wrote:

Emmeline wrote:@Olivier

None of those people you linked to are saying that "Labour's only path to re-election is to win middle-class votes from the Tories."

The Tories have taken votes from previous Labour voters and Labour has to win them back but it's not the ONLY thing they have to do and nobody is saying that it is.

Sure, but everyone is saying it's necessary, and of primary importance. It not necessarily of primary importance, and it might not even be necessary.

How else are Labour going to win the marginal seats they need to win an election?

Well, look at the famous Nuneaton: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuneaton_ ... nstituency)#Election_in_2015

The Tories won 45.5% (to Labour's 35%) of the vote on 67.2% turnout, or 30.5% of the electorate. So there are plenty of ways to win the seat without targetting Tory voters, but instead building their own credibility as a party that stands for something.

I don't see it as an either/or. Labour has to win some of those 45.5% Tory votes BY building their own credibility as a party that can be trusted with the economy, welfare & immigration (it's already trusted on the NHS). There's also the 14.4% UKIP vote, which is another group Labour has to get its voters back from. There's the non-voter group too of course and Labour should definitely try to get them on board, which Corbyn is attempting, to his credit.

OlivierK wrote:I'm not suggesting, either, that Labour should try NOT to win votes from the Tories. Naturally every vote they can claw back is valuable. Personally, though, I'd rather that instead of trying to be what those Tory voters voted for in 2015, they actually tried to change their minds, by pointing out the damage the Tories are doing to the country and its people, and offering something better. I feel a bit wearied by the thought that this is apparently now viewed as some sort of radical strategy.

I don't think Labour has to become Tory or even UKIP to win votes in places like Nuneaton (which has been Labour in the past) but it does have to become trusted with the issues they were rejected for.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Beatsong wrote:So we have a total range of about 20% difference, from c.60% to c.80%,

Where did you get the 80%? Not from my link. The rise in 2015 was partly due to the sharp rise in Scotland of 71.1%.
So 71.4% to 66.1% is not 20%

Not surprised.

Or you could try actually reading my post.

smudge wrote:... What matters is making sure people are registered to vote and are engaged enough to do so.

And the Tories are doing their level best to gerrymander the electoral role

Emmeline wrote:

OlivierK wrote:

Emmeline wrote:

OlivierK wrote:
Sure, but everyone is saying it's necessary, and of primary importance. It not necessarily of primary importance, and it might not even be necessary.

How else are Labour going to win the marginal seats they need to win an election?

Well, look at the famous Nuneaton: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuneaton_ ... nstituency)#Election_in_2015

The Tories won 45.5% (to Labour's 35%) of the vote on 67.2% turnout, or 30.5% of the electorate. So there are plenty of ways to win the seat without targetting Tory voters, but instead building their own credibility as a party that stands for something.

I don't see it as an either/or. Labour has to win some of those 45.5% Tory votes BY building their own credibility as a party that can be trusted with the economy, welfare & immigration (it's already trusted on the NHS). There's also the 14.4% UKIP vote, which is another group Labour has to get its voters back from. There's the non-voter group too of course and Labour should definitely try to get them on board, which Corbyn is attempting, to his credit.

OlivierK wrote:I'm not suggesting, either, that Labour should try NOT to win votes from the Tories. Naturally every vote they can claw back is valuable. Personally, though, I'd rather that instead of trying to be what those Tory voters voted for in 2015, they actually tried to change their minds, by pointing out the damage the Tories are doing to the country and its people, and offering something better. I feel a bit wearied by the thought that this is apparently now viewed as some sort of radical strategy.

I don't think Labour has to become Tory or even UKIP to win votes in places like Nuneaton (which has been Labour in the past) but it does have to become trusted with the issues they were rejected for.

I think in theory we'd all agree that the best outcome would be for Labour to win votes from disaffected non-voters, students, leftists etc AND from tories.

The problem is that the policies required to do so are in some cases diametrically opposed. A lot of the people Corbyn is attracting are attracted because they oppose austerity, and they agree with the idea that a perfectly valid way forward can be found for the economy without further cutting services (eg by imposing higher taxes on the rich, clamping down on corporate tax avoidance or just accepting high levels of debt). But nearly all tories believe that austerity is not just necessary (to clear the deficit) but morally right (to stop "encouraging" people not to work).

You can't be simultaneously pro-austerity and opposed to austerity. You can't be simultaneously in favour of and opposed to current levels of immigration, or for both cutting and increasing corporation tax. Labour tried all that double speak under Miliband and people (quite reasonably) didn't buy it. It's one of the very things that leads to disillusionment with politicians, because they end up giving spin-doctored answers to questions that basically say nothing, so they can avoid offending either side. People are attracted by Corbyn precisely because he doesn't do that; he knows quite clearly which side he's on and is prepared to admit he's not on the other one. I don't think we could have the kind of renewed energy and membership that's happening now while also hedging our bets in that way.

Hopefully there might be some ways in which people can be attracted from multiple directions. For example rather than just giving a loose "oh, we'll tax the rich and take longer to cut the deficit" answer to questions on the economy, Labour could give clear analyses of exactly where and how much tax needs to be raised, how long the deficit would take to clear etc. They can take a "responsible" left wing approach to the economy rather than an "irresponsible" one. Of course most tories will believe ANY left wing approach is irresponsible by definition, but a few (and a good many lib dems) may not. And of course a lot will depend on how badly the economy fucks up by 2020 under its current direction.

But fundamentally, the people who like Corbyn like him because he's prepared to make choices and admit which interests they don't serve. You can't be a One Nation all-for-everybody while doing that.

One nation politics is well and truly dead in the UK, but when you try to attract one of the dozen tribes/nations within the UK you had better make sure its a coalition of nations that reach 38% of the electorate that you need to win an overall majority.

The 10% odd poor are far too small a nation to be of much significance especially when most vote Labour or UKIP in Labour safe seats

Er - if you're aiming for a "coalition" from among a dozen groups (where you get that number from I don't know, but anyway...) to total 38%, then I would have thought getting 10% (where you get that number from I don't know, but anyway...) from just one of those groups is quite significant indeed.

Missing the important part of the various groups is that they despise each other.

My boss put it perfectly Labour are the party of the poor and that is why I will never vote for them

mrjonno wrote:Missing the important part of the various groups is that they despise each other.

You're the one who phrased in terms of putting together a coalition of them, not me. If you're trying to tell me that that's simultaneously necessary in order to form government, and yet impossible to achieve, then OK: clearly the UK has never had a government.

Who are these dozen groups who all despise each other anyway? Can you list them for me?

different groups some overlap obviously

underclass (generally white) non property owner, poor or no education
northern working class (white) non property owner poor or no education
non-northern urban working class (white) non property owner poor or no education
urban working class (ethnic minorities) non property owner poor or no education
under 25 (racially mixed) non property owners, education mixed
over 65 white, property owners poor or no education (no one had much of an education when they were kids)
public sector employees racially mixed, mixed property owner/renters, education mixed
private sector employees , education mixed
rural (white, property owners), educated
middle classes (white, southern, property owners,educated)

I don't actually think there is a political upper class not in any sort of significant numbers

The important key words are public/private sector, race, age, education and property ownership

I'm sure people might want to divide up the country in different ways but I can guarantee both the Tory party and Blair's Labour party would have had similar sorts of divisions even if they weren't exactly the same. Instead of crap like treating the electorate as individuals they use generalisation which is the key to all forms of conflict including politics

mrjonno wrote:

underclass (generally white) non property owner, poor or no education
northern working class (white) non property owner poor or no education
non-northern urban working class (white) non property owner poor or no education
urban working class (ethnic minorities) non property owner poor or no education
under 25 (racially mixed) non property owners, education mixed
over 65 white, property owners poor or no education (no one had much of an education when they were kids)
public sector employees racially mixed, mixed property owner/renters, education mixed
private sector employees , education mixed
rural (white, property owners), educated
middle classes (white, southern, property owners,educated)

I don't actually think there is a political upper class not in any sort of significant numbers

What the fucking fuck.

How's the people's republic going?

mrjonno wrote:different groups some overlap obviously

underclass (generally white) non property owner, poor or no education
northern working class (white) non property owner poor or no education
non-northern urban working class (white) non property owner poor or no education
urban working class (ethnic minorities) non property owner poor or no education
under 25 (racially mixed) non property owners, education mixed
over 65 white, property owners poor or no education (no one had much of an education when they were kids)
public sector employees racially mixed, mixed property owner/renters, education mixed
private sector employees , education mixed
rural (white, property owners), educated
middle classes (white, southern, property owners,educated)

I don't actually think there is a political upper class not in any sort of significant numbers

The important key words are public/private sector, race, age, education and property ownership

I'm sure people might want to divide up the country in different ways but I can guarantee both the Tory party and Blair's Labour party would have had similar sorts of divisions even if they weren't exactly the same. Instead of crap like treating the electorate as individuals they use generalisation which is the key to all forms of conflict including politics

Sure. So:

- The underclass despise the Northern working class
- Under 25 (racially mixed) non property owners despise public sector employees
- The white southern middle class property owners despise private sector employees
- Over 65 white poor property owners despise educated rural white property owners
- Public sector employees despise those under 25

etc. etc...

None of these statements is remotely true, even as a generalisation.

It's certainly true however that everyone despises the poor because your boss does.

mrjonno wrote:How's the people's republic going?

How's it going for you, Jack, alright?