Cav
pfm Member
And that tells everything about your understanding of statistics.Life expectancy 1950s about 65 years.
Life expectancy 2018 about 81 years.
That must be despite the Tory attempted destruction of the health service.
And that tells everything about your understanding of statistics.Life expectancy 1950s about 65 years.
Life expectancy 2018 about 81 years.
That must be despite the Tory attempted destruction of the health service.
The Tories should try harder?And that tells everything about your understanding of statistics.
Life expectancy is a big ship to turn around, but we’re getting there!
More to it than just running down the NHS of course. There are other ways to cull the poor.
Not only statistics - there might be a few more factors to count in. But no matter what they are, I suppose it's another catastrophe the nasty Tories are responsible for.And that tells everything about your understanding of statistics.
It’s a basic distribution thing; Dr Shipman, Wakefield etc more than make up the balance.
I suppose it's another catastrophe the nasty Tories are responsible for.
I can sleep nights...
You?
I’d like some Treasury funded vouchers for use down the pub to incentivise me to get one. Of course I may end up not wishing to leave the Spoons to vote if the vouchers are generous enough.What if it's a free ID card?
A very good opinion piece on the Hartlepool fiasco by Alex Niven
"Where the north is concerned, the party’s return to this elitist pre-2015 mode of operating has involved the repetition of tactics that failed to stop voters deserting the party in droves during the 2010s – an exodus pre-empted in the later New Labour years, when Peter Mandelson famously and erroneously claimed that Labour should not worry about voters in traditionally working-class areas because they had “nowhere else to go”. That Mandelson is now apparently a major presence in Starmer’s backroom team is both unfortunate and ironic."
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...england-north-east-disaster-hartlepool-labour
The demographic of the parties has changed, one has embraced this the other is in denial.
Tories won Hartlepool, Labour gained council seats inn places like Chipping Norton and Tunbridge Wells. If they continue to pander to 'traditional' areas who are now proudly voting Tory instead of going after the people the Conservatives have abandoned, they will get nowhere. The truth is many in Labour don't welcome the prospect of different voters whereas the Tories have embraced them. They will do what they need to and Labour will continue to mourn.
Demographic change does not begin to explain Hartlepool
A very good opinion piece on the Hartlepool fiasco by Alex Niven
The problem is that nobody knows who or what Labour stands for. This is why Tories won in Hartlepool. The Labour vote has declined since Labour were last in power. Labour vote in Hartlepool was around 20,000 pre Blair, went up a little when Labour was in power then steadily declined to low teens before picking up again to 22,000 in 2017.The demographic of the parties has changed, political fault lines have shifted. One party has embraced this, the other is in denial.
Tories won Hartlepool, Labour gained council seats in places like Chipping Norton and Tunbridge Wells. If they continue to pander to 'traditional' areas who are now proudly voting Tory, instead of going after the people the Conservatives have abandoned, they will get nowhere. The truth is many in Labour don't welcome the prospect of different voters, whereas the Tories have embraced them. They will do whatever they need to do - to win elections. Labour will continue to mourn and squabble.
And that is why they are unlikely to gain power again in my lifetime.The problem is that nobody knows who or what Labour stands for. This is why Tories won in Hartlepool. The Labour vote has declined since Labour were last in power. Labour vote in Hartlepool was around 20,000 pre Blair, went up a little when Labour was in power then steadily declined to low teens before picking up again to 22,000 in 2017.
People in Hartlepool have felt abandoned by Labour, they had a brief period of hope before it was crushed yet again by Labour. Along comes a Tory government that offers them hope again, and they jump at it with a complete reversal of the Labour vote in 2019 of 15,000 to a Tory vote of 15,000 in 2021.
Labour is not going to get anywhere by chasing the gammon vote, the Tories have that sewn up and without a fundamental and unambiguous narrative of what Labour stands for in a sharply divided counrty, they’ll continue trying to please everyone and actually pleasing no one.
Tend to agree. If there is going to be a substantial challenge to the Tories, it will have to come from a party with fresh ideas setting out a new direction in a new and changing world with global priorities. At the moment Labour is wedded to old thinking from 20 years ago, which is as outdated and irrelevant as Labour’s attachment to the industrial working classAnd that is why they are unlikely to gain power again in my lifetime.
Why is the industrial working class irrelevant ? Is there no such class in the UK anymore, and aren't they the ones who are getting milked the most ?and irrelevant as Labour’s attachment to the industrial working class
Demographic changes are important and I’m glad people are starting to talk about age in relation to the loss of previously safe Labour seats, rather than just banging on about Islington elites forsaking the ‘umble working class. But as Gav points out demographic shift doesn’t begin to explain Hartlepool: vote share doesn’t drop by 25% in 4 years because of demographics.The demographic of the parties has changed, political fault lines have shifted. One party has embraced this, the other is in denial.
Tories won Hartlepool, Labour gained council seats in places like Chipping Norton and Tunbridge Wells. If they continue to pander to 'traditional' areas who are now proudly voting Tory, instead of going after the people the Conservatives have abandoned, they will get nowhere. The truth is many in Labour don't welcome the prospect of different voters, whereas the Tories have embraced them. They will do whatever they need to do - to win elections. Labour will continue to mourn and squabble.
Good article by Tom Hazeldine. Lots of good analysis but the single sentence than leaps out is, “Through neglect [Labour has] poisoned its own well.”Demographic changes are important and I’m glad people are starting to talk about age in relation to the loss of previously safe Labour seats, rather than just banging on about Islington elites forsaking the ‘umble working class. But as Gav points out demographic shift doesn’t begin to explain Hartlepool: vote share doesn’t drop by 25% in 4 years because of demographics.
As Tom Hazeldine argues in this article, the Conservatives won Hartlepool from the left: Labour, bewilderingly, played up continuities with the New Labour years, while the Conservatives pushed the record of Tory Tees Valley mayor Ben Houchen, whose schtick is economic development and nationalisation.
It’s absurd to write off “traditional” Labour safe seats, especially given the loss of Scotland, when very recent history, as well as Labour’s success stories in the most recent elections, show that they can be won with economic populism - which is also popular with Labour’s young and city-based voters.
Unless, of course, you think that economic populism is “pandering”. Lots of the people currently in charge of Labour certainly do. That “traditional” voters have been falling away is not news to them. Shifting right *culturally* in an attempt to recover them is a well-worn strategy. It’s never occurred to them to shift left *economically*. So their fatalism is quite consistent: racism didn’t work so it’s time to go after the shires! Demographics, dear boy, demographics!
Yep. Harder, faster neglect.Good article by Tom Hazeldine. Lots of good analysis but the single sentence than leaps out is, “Through neglect [Labour has] poisoned its own well.”
What was neglect is now looking like a new policy direction.