Corbyn's Magnetism

I used the Fullfact figure, as I think it's more likely to be an accurage guestimate.

fullfact.org/news/how-old-average-conservative-party-member/

Where's that from?

I thought that looked a little low Primrose. Tory party membership has drastically declined I know so this may only be that average age of a Tory MP by now but:

The average age in the UK is 40; compare that to the fact that the average age of a Conservative Party member is 72, up from 66 just two years ago. 15 Sep 2017

Tories average age is 57 I think. Is that 'considerable'? I think it's probably comparable.

All the political parties have a members average age of 50-something. Perhaps it's a mid-life-crisis thing to do, a tick on a list - "Join a political party"

Grandad I'm afraid the data doesn't support that view at all. There have been academic studies of 'who has joined since Corbyn became leader'. They are middle class and middle age people. 78% are ABC1's, against an existing membership base of 70% ABC1's and they have an average age of 51.

Labour members are quite solidly middle class and middle-aged!

www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/items/178403.html

I keep reading that the average age of the LP members is 51. It is considerably lower than the Tories but I wouldn't call it "young" and I would expect those people to vote.

The post starts with "at it's widest" Jalima. Why would it not therefore be fairly simplistic? If you would like to write something more complicated then please, go ahead - otherwise what is the point of your post?

Indeed, Gracesgran - I agree, on reflection it was about as pointless as yours.

Quote [lemongrove

Will they all vote though? Joining an organisation that only costs a couple of pounds, when you are young ( as many are)
And then perhaps having to wait four years or so before you actually vote, begs the question ‘will they still be keen after that sort of timescale?’]. End Quote

Lemongrove, many who have joined the Labour party with Jeremy Corbyn as its leader are those which cannot find good, secure, well paid employment so prevalent in Britain to past generations.

In that those new members now often work in poorly paid employment on short hour or zero contracts with no security. Without good secure employment many of those new members are also unable to get on the property ladder which since the 1980s has been at the basis of the British economy for judging security and stability.

So, many of those 400,000 new members have every reason for voting for radical change as they obviously view the present established system as being unable to provide the stability in their lives that previous generations have enjoyed since the second world war.

The post starts with "at it's widest" Jalima. Why would it not therefore be fairly simplistic? If you would like to write something more complicated then please, go ahead - otherwise what is the point of your post?

That's a good question about voting lemon. Perhaps there are people who feel all they need to support Corbyn is to retweet a few videos on their Facebook page. Voting can be a bit of an effort, especially if the weather's not good, or you're in a rush to get to work. And Labour is going to have a landslide win anyway, so it's not a big deal.

Jalima... I think we have all gone full circle ( and back again.)

At its widest there are two groups in the world. One who have wealth and wish to hold onto it and one who wishes to use that wealth for as many as possible.
that is a very simplistic viewpoint - the reality is far more complicated than that.

Will they all vote though? Joining an organisation that only costs a couple of pounds, when you are young ( as many are)
And then perhaps having to wait four years or so before you actually vote, begs the question ‘will they still be keen after that sort of timescale?’

There are now calls for David Lammey to be deselected

Thank you grummpa

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/27/jews-furious-corbyn-evasions-labour-antisemitism

Oh, have I gone full circle lemongrove?

I have been busy, couldn't keep up with this thread so have only read the last few comments.
I haven't read any msm or listened to much news lately either (apart from local news).

I don't think what I posted was anti-Corbyn, just reporting what I was told after the last election. And I am sure he is well-meaning but I do wonder if the tail is wagging the dog rather than vice-versa.

At its widest there are two groups in the world. One who have wealth and wish to hold onto it and one who wishes to use that wealth for as many as possible.

What an incredibly dated socialist view.

The greedy rich versus the right-on and incredibly saintly poor. Hard left Labour likes to perpetuate that view.

The structure of both parties has changed immeasurably yet Labour needs us all to be firmly in our places. The world has moved on. We no longer doff our caps to masters. Labour used to represent the workers, but now they have rights and know them, its hard left aims are to topple the establishment.

"The rich" are to be spat upon according to Labour. However, they can go off and use their playgrounds around the world. They can afford to scarper and have their accountants to shift their money around should any political party want to squeeze them. They aren't really part of the equation if they pay their taxes. They are not like anyone who posts here. Yet Labour still targets them and spits at 'getting on'.

But beyond the rich so hated by Labour are workers, with aspirations who might not have much, but want common sense to prevail. The Conservative Party now represents them. They want a national health service, good schools, nice neighbourhoods, decent affordable housing, the ability to progress for their efforts and to be taxed fairly. The poor benefit. They are concerned about open border immigration, employment opportunities, minority rights and the weak and less fortunate. They are ordinary, compassionate mortals. Many have very little. More and more they vote for the Conservative party.

Now the hard left runs the Labour Party more and more people are wondering what exactly Labour stands for. In recent weeks they've been treated to men in frocks having women's rights, a party leader who wants to destroy our military strength and would listen to Putin before our own PM and our UK allies across the world, and a man who denies his party is anti Semetic, who wears blinkers and only apologises when pressure forces him to. Oh he wants a good train service, to ensure the NHS works, open borders, taxation to fund everything, and no one knows what his stance on the EU is because it changes when he is pressurised. He would tie us to the EU. He used to be a renowned Eurosceptic. Labour fuel the politics of envy, relies on it to create hatred, spreading the myth that Conservatives don't care, when they patently do.

The Conservative party cares as much as the Labour party about things that matter to communities. The difference is that the Conservative party knows the economy matters, and wont' tax the worker unfairly to fund schemes. People fear for the state of the economy and UK safety under Labour. Ironically, Labour is the party of anarchy, unrest, and division and minority groups. If you work, expect to be poorer.

It's no longer about rich versus poor. That ship has sailed and Labour is without a base and needs to upset the apple cart. The hard left need someone to hate.

Yes Corbyn has alienated some old members, but he has recruited approximately 400,000 new members, which is what some may term "successful"

switch switched

Why did I protest against Corbyn? Look at his long list of evasions

There is your link grumppa. I shan't be looking at it though, just the same as I switch off quite a few of the interviews on the politics programmes today. It is now so far over the top that it ceases to be of any interest. I am not a "Corbynista" as some people try to make out but neither will I indulge in the anti-Corbynism, the same sort of attacks on him that some well connected Jews are complaining about. It's all got very dark and rather nasty as far as I am concerned.

Which is what the original OP was about Jalima the fact that Corbyn has pulled new members in but has also alienated many established voters.

The impression that I got from family and their wider family and friends living in a former mining town was that they still voted Labour despite 'that Jeremy Corbyn'. In fact, one or two seemed almost embarrassed to say that they had - as always - voted Labour.

mostly I understood that some voters defected from Labour to support UKIP - having achieved the aim of Brexit they will now abandon UKIP and go back to Labour (job done).

I agree with Iam64 about Andy Burnham/Yvette Cooper and think that, if the moderates had had more influence, we would have a Labour government now as obviously they would have attracted the more centre voters - including many who may have voted Tory simply to keep out Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott.

I cannot provide a link, but I would recommend a look at an article in today's Guardian: - "Why I protested against Corbyn: look at his long list of evasions" by Hadley Freeman.

Oh, and I think it was GG2 who gently mocked me for my use of the phrase 'useful idiots'. On reflection, this was a bit of a misnomer; for 'ful' read 'less'.

It's interesting that in London, plenty of remainers don't feel that the LP represent them anymore either! I suppose that's the by-product of their Brexit strategy though. People who prioritise Brexit (leave or remain) over their traditional party will be alienated.
I think that's the way politics is moving, to be honest.
It's not left vs right, wealth vs poverty anymore - well, not that I see in London anyway.

I believe you mostly harmless and I hope you believe our experience here. I live in a deprived former cotton town, which was top of the conservative list of constituencies they expected to win. The people who expressed concern about the LP leadership were largely older Labour voters. They didn't feel the LP represented them any more. They were Leave voters.