Labour will be a major reforming government

Any politician who believes women can have a penis will never get my vote

It was all over the news at the time how disappointing the turnout was in the last election for young people!! How did you miss that?

Because it was in the media does not make it true. That data is not collected, and media coverage was of two polls. Ipsos, one of the polling bodies, made a point in their official data releases, of noting that this kind of polling was the hardest to analyse so their confidence in the results was not high.

What the evidence from statistical analysis of actual turnout shows is:

Turnout tends to be higher than average in constituencies with a larger proportion of older residents.

Grouping the UK’s constituencies into 10 deciles (65 constituencies in each), based on the proportion of the resident population of voting age people aged 65 or over shows:

in the decile with the oldest age profile on this basis (average proportion aged 65 and over: 33%) turnout was 71.4%, 4.1 percentage points higher than the national average. The youngest decile (average proportion aged 65 and over: 12%) had the lowest turnout: 64.5% (2.8 percentage points lower than the national average).

This association does not necessarily show that an older population is a causal factor in higher turnout. Indeed, within each of these deciles there is a wide range of individual constituency turnouts. [my bold]

Among the ‘oldest’ 65 constituencies, individual constituency turnouts ranged between 61% and 78%, and among the ‘youngest’ 65 constituencies turnouts ranged between 53% and 77%.

Source: House of Commons Library, UK Parliament

I would add to that list, Primrose53, abolishing mortgage interest relief for owner occupiers, while retaining it for landlords, thus giving a huge boost to the buy-to-let sector. . I can only think that their motive was that there’d be so many new private rentals, it would absolve them from having to worry about provision of social housing.

And before anyone says, ‘Thatcher’s Right to Buy!’ Labour had 13 years in which to ditch that right, but they didn’t - presumably because they thought it’d lose them votes. A staunch Labour-voting friend of mine was only too happy to buy the house where she’d lived all her life, at a hefty discount.

I only read the first few responses into this thread when I knew I’d have to respond in this way…. for me, it’s ALL about VOTING.

It’s very true the younger generation generally are apathetic towards govt and elections. They could care less.

But if there would be younger generational candidates to peak their interest with platforms that are relevant to them they turn out in record numbers.

I think they think no one is speaking to them - the old fuddy-duddies are preaching to the ancients.

Even though I’m “ancient” I care about reaching the masses for maximum impact - those would be (suburban) women and college age/younger voters.

Vote as if your life depends on it!
USA Gundy

As half of his voters are women yes it’s important.

Nusgranny

Primrose53

🤣🤣🤣 votes at 16? At the last elections the 18+ youth couldn’t be bothered to get out of bed and vote even though they had been chanting “ooh Jeremy Corbyn” at Glasto and he had promised them the earth.

16 year olds won’t put down their phones long enough to vote 🤣🤣

And your proof for this is ?

It was all over the news at the time how disappointing the turnout was in the last election for young people!! How did you miss that?

Karmer stating what a woman is , more important than the NHS, Food Banks ?

We all have differences priorities

Yes wonderful now ask him what a Woman is 🤣🤣🤣 mr turn around on his fence won’t get my vote

Honest unbiased.
Wikipedia on SENSTIONALISM in the media:

"In journalism and mass media, sensationalism is a type of editorial tactic. Events and topics in news stories are selected and worded to excite the greatest number of readers and viewers. This style of news reporting encourages biased or emotionally loaded impressions of events rather than neutrality, and may cause a manipulation to the truth of a story.[1] Sensationalism may rely on reports about generally insignificant matters and portray them as a major influence on society, or biased presentations of newsworthy topics, in a trivial, or tabloid manner, contrary to general assumptions of professional journalistic standards."

(source: Wilipedia)

Mollygo

Bungle22

People seemed to like Johnson’s so called charisma and charm. I knew some one who met him and said it was a veneer, swiftly switched off when away from the public. Underneath was a calculating dishonest man with a shambolic immoral private life.

I wouldn’t vote for BJ, but the old, “I knew someone who met him” is hearsay.

It seems to be a very common view among people who have known or worked with him, though...

rainbow13

I wouldn't vote for him until he is able to say what a woman is, so it's a big no from me

Although I fully understand the debate on this issue is complex and many strong feelings, I cannot seriously believe that it can override the dreadful situations we find ourselves in in the NHS, care sector, benefits and cost of living and trading concerns.

By asking Starmer that question continually in the press he is being "set up" by the right to try and find a weak point - anything will do - to maintain the status quo in everything else.
Its a nonsense to ask it (and never give him time for a nuanced answer, btw) when the concerns are being addressed root and branch in the LP to try and find appropriate policy solutions.

Bungle22

People seemed to like Johnson’s so called charisma and charm. I knew some one who met him and said it was a veneer, swiftly switched off when away from the public. Underneath was a calculating dishonest man with a shambolic immoral private life.

I wouldn’t vote for BJ, but the old, “I knew someone who met him” is hearsay.

People seemed to like Johnson’s so called charisma and charm. I knew some one who met him and said it was a veneer, swiftly switched off when away from the public. Underneath was a calculating dishonest man with a shambolic immoral private life.

I wouldn't vote for him until he is able to say what a woman is, so it's a big no from me

Do think they should raise it back to 21

Votes at 16 is really a silly idea. Unless they start politically unbiased lessons at 15. It's a fact that even some 18 year old don't really use their vote and/or don't understand the process. Personally I don't think they should raise it back up to 21. How can people be putting put missing "children" pleas for 16-18 year olds and saying they are not ready for sex or gender realignment then state they are ready to vote at 16. Doesn't make sense to me. I voted as one of the first 18 year old and only voted what my Dad did with no particular understanding at all.

paddyann54, it was the 51st Highland Division, who were sacrificed, to allow others to escape from the beaches at Dunkirk. (You probs know that already). I understand that difficult decisions must be made in war, but to actually use that comment as a rational for choosing those soldiers, unforgivable.
Back to the main thread, promises count for nothing if you don't get elected. Tactical voting seems to have worked in the recent English LE. If Starmer has the sense to negotiate a strategy, then he deserves to be elected. Corbyn and Swinson absolutely blew it with their intransigent postures.

Primrose53

🤣🤣🤣 votes at 16? At the last elections the 18+ youth couldn’t be bothered to get out of bed and vote even though they had been chanting “ooh Jeremy Corbyn” at Glasto and he had promised them the earth.

16 year olds won’t put down their phones long enough to vote 🤣🤣

And your proof for this is ?

I accept all grans' adverse criticisms of Churchill that have come from Glorianny, Anniebach and others.

The main point remains, as explained by Whitewavemark, that opinions in 2023 and for many years previously are wrongly informed by media (WWM calls them "newspaper headlines").
How are we to know where to get the honest political information i.e. the truth ?

Siope they certainly don't have that sort of vision at the moment.

I think because it would mean a different way of doing things, which would be a change and so many people are afraid of change.

I wonder why, with evidence all around us, that right wing policies have led to disasters in most areas-housing, health, education, transport, water, etc. People aren't starting to look for better ways of doing things.

WWM Certainly we have moved to the right. The big question though ‘is did we drift, or were we led?’ and I would argue that we were led, by political parties with clear narratives about why that was the best direction of travel.

For me, Labour could - should - have a clear counter-narrative, evidencing why that would be best for the majority of people in this country (and, environmentally, for the world). It could be that they have one and are too timid to articulate it, but I rather think they just don’t have that kind of vision.

Churchill was hated in the South Wales valleys , he was never forgiven for sending troops here with the orders to shoot -
The Tonapandy Riots .

siope that was my reply to you