[Offwidth]

Extensive breakdown of voting by age in the Times today,  for those who can read it. I don't know about area so much, so very prominently, over 65 voted conservative , under 25, labour.  Unsurprising, but stark. Ageing population, regressive authoritarian government. 

This graph was posted a few days ago:

https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1205535498065846272

The graph doesn't fully indicate the scale of the problem as older voters are slightly more likely to vote and there are different numbers in the age categories. Like the referendum, older voters have bequeathed this result on the next generations; the social class and educational background split looks slightly less skewed though.

[A Jooser]

This animated year in politics from cartoonist Morten Morland of The Times / The Sunday Times is brilliant...



(Subtle highlights for me are Jo Swinson blowing her own trumpet, the hot air from the horn section, Priti Patel with the dog whistle and Rory Stewart's selfy-stick flute. What are everyone else's best bits?)

[Oldmanmatt]

Extensive breakdown of voting by age in the Times today,  for those who can read it. I don't know about area so much, so very prominently, over 65 voted conservative , under 25, labour.  Unsurprising, but stark. Ageing population, regressive authoritarian government. 

This graph was posted a few days ago:

https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1205535498065846272

The graph doesn't fully indicate the scale of the problem as older voters are slightly more likely to vote and there are different numbers in the age categories. Like the referendum, older voters have bequeathed this result on the next generations; the social class and educational background split looks slightly less skewed though.

These age splits, must be largely inferred from exit and other polling data (entirely?) since it’s a secret ballot. So, it might be off by a large margin.
For instance, everyone over 60 in Liverpool, might have voted Labour out of nostalgia and everyone under 25 Tory out of social ambition. Obviously (I hope) I pulled  that out of thin air as a fictional example, I hope you get the point.
We don’t and probably can’t really know what motivated people to vote as they did.

[Oldmanmatt]

Maybe we need separate ballots, by age, and weight the result by how long (statistically) the voters have to live with the result?
Or split between an upper and lower house, elected respectively by over and under 55’s?

That’s not in anyway a serious proposal, can you imagine the inter generational warfare that would ensue?

[JR]

There is definitely something unique about Liverpool but it is more than just remain = labour.

Hillsborough.

[i.munro]

This graph was posted a few days ago:

https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1205535498065846272

What amazes me about that is that 19% of 18-24s voted Tory WTF!
Is it poverty or imminent death from Climate change that has so enthused them.

[nai]

Yep, that'd be about a million of them:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/281174/uk-population-by-age/

And 12 million over 65s.

[Oldmanmatt]

This graph was posted a few days ago:

https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1205535498065846272

What amazes me about that is that 19% of 18-24s voted Tory WTF!
Is it poverty or imminent death from Climate change that has so enthused them.

Aspirational.

Plenty of people dream of getting rich or being “successful” and (I’d guess) a larger proportion of already conservatively  (small c) minded people occupy that dream space than Liberally minded people. I would suspect that financial success slips down the “success” rankings as you move left on the personality spectrum (probably ending up around “Achieving oneness and harmony with the universe” at the absolute left extreme and “having all the money and ruling the entire universe” on the right).

It doesn’t make them evil. I was one, even as I marched in the Poll tax protests, I was still a Tory.

It’s another one of those things Labour fails to grasp. You have to offer something to the individual , as well as society. Some people, value personal advancement and opportunity. Some value that above societal benefits. Approximately 50% of the population fall to right of the cut off. This hasn’t changed.
This time around, Labour didn’t make any effort to dangle personal prosperity carrots (I think free broadband was seen as a gimmick). I think they forgot/didn’t notice that the gig economy, essentially moved whole swathes of the population into a, hypothetical, Businessperson not employee category and that would change entirely how they viewed things like the tax proposals.
Say you’re an Electrician. Over the last ten years, you’ve gone from apprentice to self employed, to taking on a couple of lads, to running four vans and a workshop with a lockup. You’ve gone from £3.12/hr to a nice £75k, you have a big house, mortgage, family. You can see a couple more vans in the next five, maybe a big contract with that developer and the magic £100k per annum.
Now, as it stands, you’ll lose a fair chunk of that to HMRC, but this Corbyn bloke wants even more...

I have always felt, that Labour is at a disadvantage, every time they approach a campaign from the “Things are so terrible, we must all sacrifice for the common good” angle and the Tories just shout “What Ho! We’re British, none of this moping rubbish. Chin up!” and promise pavements of gold.

Clearly things are more complicated and subtle than that. I mean it should be bloody obvious that some sacrifice is needed, roads don’t build themselves, some people need help etc etc. But Labour are shit at selling things. The Spivs in blue have that down pat.

Dour Magic Grampa vs the Bouncing Boris.

[tomtom]

Dour Magic Grampa vs the Bouncing Boris.

Exactly. on R5 the other day they had Mays former advisor on - and he was saying that their polling (when with May) showed that there was considerable appetite for more socialist policies corbyn had, but they needed to have someone credible that they believed would carry out those changes. He was asked who they feared back then most as a possible labour leader and they said John McDonnell. All their private polling showed him to be more believable, and statesman than Corbyn (he even fell on his sword in a decent way..). So you can sell any message and people will vote for you as long as they believe in you and that you can implement that message.

[petejh]

Had been meaning for some time to respond to Offwidth's posts with exactly this. Corbyn was dour and uninspiring, and political leadership seems mostly to be about personality and perceived leadership traits. Or at least in a contest where one leader has them and the other doesn't then you can guess who'll win out. We're human beings and we're not entirely rational logical animals. Anyone who's ever been responsible for leading others knows you can have the 'best' ideas on paper (best for who will always be debatable) but people don't react emotionally to ideas and policies, they react to people's perceived leadership traits. Corbyn had a dour uninspiring personality as a leader.

[TobyD]

Had been meaning for some time to respond to Offwidth's posts with exactly this. Corbyn was dour and uninspiring, and political leadership seems mostly to be about personality and perceived leadership traits. Or at least in a contest where one leader has them and the other doesn't then you can guess who'll win out. We're human beings and we're not entirely rational logical animals. Anyone who's ever been responsible for leading others knows you can have the 'best' ideas on paper (best for who will always be debatable) but people don't react emotionally to ideas and policies, they react to people's perceived leadership traits. Corbyn had a dour uninspiring personality as a leader.

Yup. As the article I linked to earlier says this also means that people are far more likely to disbelieve Corbyn than Johnson, despite the fact that the latter is a habitual liar and the former isn't. I could say any number of things about Corbyn but I don't think I'd go for liar.

[petejh]

Amazes me that many people don't seem to grasp how important this is in leadership elections though. Do you think Jose Mourinho, Alex Fergusan or Jurgen Klopp really have the most perfect-on-paper tactical and strategic plans for which formation and player combinations will produce the most optimum outcomes? They obviously have good plans, but the magic touch is their personality and perceived leadership traits, which convince people to believe in the project and be motivated to make it succeed. Corbyn was Aston Villa!

[Will Hunt]

There was a moment in the campaign when Corbyn was stood on a station platform giving an interview, muttering away under his breath in his nodding way about nationalising the railways. He made it sound like the most boring and pointless thing you could possibly do. I was swearing loudly at him to animate himself and wondered what the same policy might sound like coming out of Johnson's mouth.

He would have leapt about on the spot pumping his arms around. "Were going to get the trains running on time so the good people here can stop standing around in the cold; we're going to boost the railways and get people out of their cars and onto the trains so our cities can breathe again and eradicate congestion. We're going to get this country moving again!"

Cue cheers of approval from onlookers, children rush forward and present him with flowers, old ladies dab their eyes with their handkerchiefs.

In any case, improving rail services is only ever going to play really well among young urbanites and those commuters in the south east, who were probably going to vote for you anyway.

[Bonjoy]

As I said in the referendum thread in 2016:

Electibility and all of that is all well and good, as is appealing to the 'centre ground' (which inches further right every year), but all that ends up happening is you take a massive gamble by alienating the base while trying to reach out to these magical swing voters.

Look if this is all about pleasing the club members than can you all go away and argue in a corner while everyone else gets on with finding some other bunch who can unseat the torys.
I like JC and I like a lot of his policies, I also would like there to be an effective opposition and some prospect of a change of government in the next ten years.
Being the leader of a political party requires certain skills, one of which is being a salesman. There is no getting away from this. How many leaders must the Labour party get through before they remember this fact? Jeremy Corbyn is a woeful salesman. This has NOTHING to do with moving right or left on policy. There is no reason why a politician of any hue can't possess the skill to speak to people in a way that makes them believed and trusted. There is no reason why an able politician can't cut through any amount of media bile and bias. Look at Donald Trump FFS! He may be an objectionable creature but he is proof that you can succeed in the face of bitter media/establishment opposition. Like I said before, stuff like your comment above is just perpetuating a false dichotomy. The only thing which will ensure Corbyn's successor being a Blairite is the inability of everyone else to field a half decent alternative

This outcome has been highly predictable for a long time.

[galpinos]

In any case, improving rail services is only ever going to play really well among young urbanites and those commuters in the south east, who were probably going to vote for you anyway.

And everyone in the north, crying out for better rail services.

[James Malloch]

On a tangent, I loved the monster raving Looney party manifesto point on Brexit....

"We will Send Noel Edmonds to negotiate Brexit because he understands Deal or No Deal.
There will be no need for a backstop to the Brexit negotiations. We’ll have Alec Stewart as wicket-keeper."

[Oldmanmatt]

I loved the monster raving Looney party manifesto point on Brexit....

"We will Send Noel Edmonds to negotiate Brexit because he understands Deal or No Deal.
There will be no need for a backstop to the Brexit negotiations. We’ll have Alec Stewart as wicket-keeper."

I thought that was the Labour party manifesto.


Then I realised it makes to much sense.

[gme]

In any case, improving rail services is only ever going to play really well among young urbanites and those commuters in the south east,

And everyone in the north, crying out for better rail services.

Maybe for commuters in the bigger cities, areas that generally didn’t vote Tory, but outside these rail is an irrelevance.
Average people in Blyth, Bishop, Redcar etc are not interested in the railways at all. Buses yes but not trains, most wont catch one in a year. Businesses in these areas would like improved services.
This is another example of labour focusing on the metropolitan areas too much.

I asked this question at work and 70% of my staff never use a train.

[winhill]

"Mary Creagh, the former MP for Wakefield, said she had given Mr Corbyn the “hairdryer” treatment after she saw him at Westminster while clearing out her Commons office.

Her anger at her defeat after 14 years representing the West Yorkshire seat spilled over as Mr Corbyn prepared to meet with those Labour MPs who retained their seats at a party meeting tonight...

Ms Creagh, who saw her 2,000 majority overturned to lose Wakefield by more than 3,000 votes, said she told Mr Corbyn he had run a disastrous and chaotic election campaign, overseen a “joke” manifesto and alienated Labour’s natural supporters.

She demanded that he step down immediately, saying it was wrong for him to stay in his job while she had been forced to make her Commons staff redundant.

“I told him it was his sole decision to call the election without even consulting the shadow cabinet and as a result of that decision he has delivered the hardest possible Brexit,” she said. “I told him to come to Wakefield to apologise for five more years of Tory austerity and five years of a Tory MP. It was a hairdryer moment.”"

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-faces-tirade-from-defeated-labour-mp-mary-creagh-73sl58bx6

On the beeb:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-50831524/creagh-on-corbyn-he-should-be-apologising

And then on Channel 4:

"We have in Jeremy a man without honour and without shame - and a type of preening narcissism that means he thinks he's still got something left to offer the Labour movement."

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1207016886803804161/vid/1280x720/u14wfjuS7lQtwX8g.mp4?tag=13

Anna Soubry made an interesting point that JCs insistence on an election had prevented a people's vote on Boris' deal that may have prevented Brexit..

[Bradders]

Had been meaning for some time to respond to Offwidth's posts with exactly this. Corbyn was dour and uninspiring, and political leadership seems mostly to be about personality and perceived leadership traits. Or at least in a contest where one leader has them and the other doesn't then you can guess who'll win out. We're human beings and we're not entirely rational logical animals. Anyone who's ever been responsible for leading others knows you can have the 'best' ideas on paper (best for who will always be debatable) but people don't react emotionally to ideas and policies, they react to people's perceived leadership traits. Corbyn had a dour uninspiring personality as a leader.

If this is all true (and I'm not saying it isn't), what was all the "oooooh Je-re-my Cooooorbyn" stuff about in the 2017 GE?

You could argue he was up against May-bot and therefore anything with a personality stood a good chance, but that doesn't quite explain how he so successfully whipped up support then (and still lost).

[TobyD]

Had been meaning for some time to respond to Offwidth's posts with exactly this. Corbyn was dour and uninspiring, and political leadership seems mostly to be about personality and perceived leadership traits. Or at least in a contest where one leader has them and the other doesn't then you can guess who'll win out. We're human beings and we're not entirely rational logical animals. Anyone who's ever been responsible for leading others knows you can have the 'best' ideas on paper (best for who will always be debatable) but people don't react emotionally to ideas and policies, they react to people's perceived leadership traits. Corbyn had a dour uninspiring personality as a leader.

If this is all true (and I'm not saying it isn't), what was all the "oooooh Je-re-my Cooooorbyn" stuff about in the 2017 GE?

You could argue he was up against May-bot and therefore anything with a personality stood a good chance, but that doesn't quite explain how he so successfully whipped up support then (and still lost).

I think the narrative of Labour success in 2017 is a bit of a myth. Getting a load of momentum groupies together for a sing song doesn't help in the least if you're trying to sell a brand of Marxism which alienates business and most of middle class England. 
Corbyn can't be seen as a strong leader by saying hes neutral on the pivotal issue of the entire election.  Strong leaders aren't openly criticised during the campaign by their own party. But the most important thing is presentation.  Whether you like it or not (I don't) Johnson is perceived as a leader because in interview hes assertive,  bombastic,  expressive and frequently amusing (if you like that sort of thing). Corbyn comes across as peevish,  irritable, never funny and his refrain during the campaign seemed to be "if you'd just let me finish ". In the end that's all people heard. Enough people have Labour the benefit of the doubt in 2017, if ran out in 2019.
I don't think there are millions of Tory faithful now, just people who gritted their teeth and put a cross there as they thought they should vote, and they all seemed pretty bad options,  but they definitely weren't Communists and didn't believe the broadband promise.  With a better leader, there would have been a hung parliament. However that's in the past Labour just need someone who isn't a disaster,  and isn't a revolutionary Marxist. 

[petejh]

Had been meaning for some time to respond to Offwidth's posts with exactly this. Corbyn was dour and uninspiring, and political leadership seems mostly to be about personality and perceived leadership traits. Or at least in a contest where one leader has them and the other doesn't then you can guess who'll win out. We're human beings and we're not entirely rational logical animals. Anyone who's ever been responsible for leading others knows you can have the 'best' ideas on paper (best for who will always be debatable) but people don't react emotionally to ideas and policies, they react to people's perceived leadership traits. Corbyn had a dour uninspiring personality as a leader.

If this is all true (and I'm not saying it isn't), what was all the "oooooh Je-re-my Cooooorbyn" stuff about in the 2017 GE?

You could argue he was up against May-bot and therefore anything with a personality stood a good chance, but that doesn't quite explain how he so successfully whipped up support then (and still lost).

See bold bit in quote. I think being up against May explains a lot of the 2017 performance - two grey people, hardly a personality contest.

McDonnell consistently came across to me as more approachable, better suited to leadership and someone many of the public could identify with.

[galpinos]

In any case, improving rail services is only ever going to play really well among young urbanites and those commuters in the south east,

And everyone in the north, crying out for better rail services.

Maybe for commuters in the bigger cities, areas that generally didn’t vote Tory, but outside these rail is an irrelevance.
Average people in Blyth, Bishop, Redcar etc are not interested in the railways at all. Buses yes but not trains, most wont catch one in a year. Businesses in these areas would like improved services.
This is another example of labour focusing on the metropolitan areas too much.

I asked this question at work and 70% of my staff never use a train.

I guess I'm swayed by being in the northwest and the pretty good but expensive West Coast Mainline, but also the awful services of Northern and Trans Pennine. In the North West, public Transport is a big issue and it would make a big difference is the Conservative seats up here:

Altrincham and Sale
Bolton NE (Con Gain)
Bolton W
Bury N (Con Gain)
Bury S (Con Gain)
Cheadle
Hazel Grove
Heywood and Middleton (Con Gain)
Leigh (Con Gain)
Southport

There's 10 Conservative seats in Greater Manchester. 5 of which were gains at this election. Don't make the mistake of thinking the "North" is one homogeneous group. Not every policy has to resonate with every single voter.

[SA Chris]

she had been forced to make her Commons staff redundant.

Does TUPE not apply in government?

[shark]

However that's in the past Labour just need someone who isn't a disaster,  and isn't a revolutionary Marxist.

Agree with everything else you said but the bar will need to be higher than this. The electorate will see through a puppet leader. Whoever is in charge will need to wrest control away from the radical Left and lead internal cultural and institutional change in the party. I have no idea how hard this would be even on the back of this catastrophic defeat.

There is also the issue of how tainted the new leader is by their history on Remain or Leave. And of course their approach on Brexit issues going forward because it’s not going to be a dead issue by the end of January.

Also if the “People’s Government” actually (or are seen to be) deliver for the “just-about-managing” then Labour would be completely on the backfoot.

In fact what would be the point of Labour in the Labour heartlands if the Tories started delivering on their manifesto promises. Boris Johnson may be a liar and a chancer but retaining the support of this demographic is aligned to personal interests of a second term.