Political polling

[ska invita]

I read ska’s post as asking whether PR would address ‘limited democracy’ . Are you saying that ‘limited democracy’ is not having PR ?

Limited in that we live in a two party state with little difference between the two options, with greatly reduced local democracy/municipalism, with a highly biased press, etc etc etc.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Limited in that we live in a two party state with little difference between the two options, with greatly reduced local democracy/municipalism, with a highly biased press, etc etc etc.

It's also limited in the very literal sense that a lot of stuff is just fundamentally off limits isn't it. Jeremy Corbyn was treated to a large degree as being not just wrong or a bad politician or whatever, but in being essentially illegitimate. Anything more radical would meet stronger resistance and not in a 'well if people vote for it then we accept defeat' sort of way.

 

[The39thStep]

Limited in that we live in a two party state with little difference between the two options, with greatly reduced local democracy/municipalism, with a highly biased press, etc etc etc.

Ok getcha. Don’t think PR is going to resolve that tbh .

 

[ska invita]

Ok getcha. Don’t think PR is going to resolve that tbh .

It would break the two party mold, but I still don't understand how it's possible to lead so much in the popular vote and result in a hung parliament...

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Savanta making an 'interesting' contribution 'Labour set for 314 seat majority'.

This would be remarkable more for the near parliamentary disappearance of the Tories, rather than the sunlit uplands made possible by Starmer's massive mandate!

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[brogdale]

Savanta making an 'interesting' contribution 'Labour set for 314 seat majority'.

This would be remarkable more for the near parliamentary disappearance of the Tories, rather than the sunlit uplands made possible by Starmer's massive mandate!

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

'Interesting' as you say, but worth noting that lately the polls have, unsurprisingly, been showing a degree of re-convergence from the heady days of the Trussageddon:

 

[Louis MacNeice]

'Interesting' as you say, but worth noting that lately the polls have, unsurprisingly, been showing a degree of re-convergence from the heady days of the Trussageddon:

View attachment 355572

It's mrp polling which is sort of the interesting bit. There's a New Scientist article that talks about the mrp model in relation to polling; worth a read (sorry I can't link to it on my phone).

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[brogdale]

It's mrp polling which is sort of the interesting bit. There's a New Scientist article that talks about the mrp model in relation to polling; worth a read (sorry I can't link to it on my phone).

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Yeah, but any comparison with the situation in September ("early Truss" ) is going to overplay things as they are now in 'Mid Sunak'

 

[Sue]

Yeah, but any comparison with the situation in September ("early Truss" ) is going to overplay things as they are now in 'Mid Sunak'

What a time to be alive. Hell in a handcart.

 

[brogdale]

This year's newbie pollsters Omnisis end the year with the LP >50%:

 

[brogdale]

Vermin ending their annus horribilis sub 20%:

 

[belboid]

19??? N-n-n-n-nineteen???? I've seen the fucking Greens get higher than that!

 

[ska invita]

roughly:

 

[kabbes]

The big incentive for people to vote for a party that focuses on property rights… is to own property.

(Incidentally, demographers would usually say that the generations are not aligned between the UK and US. But that’s by the by.)

 

[ska invita]

The big incentive for people to vote for a party that focuses on property rights… is to own property.

....or owning property and accumulating wealth/capital in itself has an effect on your political ideology
<<the point i was making in the Class thread.

Its not like abolishing private property is an option at the ballot box - all parties support property rights

OR maybe its a simple as old people are more likely to become bitter reactionaries.
The FT puts it down to home ownership

 

[DotCommunist]

The big incentive for people to vote for a party that focuses on property rights… is to own property.

(Incidentally, demographers would usually say that the generations are not aligned between the UK and US. But that’s by the by.)

Gove is keen on housing. Before he was a big Htler appeaser Chamberlain was about house building. Of course Goves party shot down mandatory building targets the other day. Not so long ago you had some young bright blue sort cons moaning about how do you create capitalists when nobody under 40 has any capital.

 

[kabbes]

....or owning property and accumulating wealth/capital in itself has an effect on your political ideology
<<the point i was making in the Class thread.

I would say “yes and” in answer to this. Yes, it does have an effect. But the effect is not a change, it’s an accretion. There is no one “ideology” that people have. Ideologies are inherently dilemmatic — we all associate with identities that contain conflicting ideologies. You can even see this in daily aphorisms — in 1605, Francis Bacon listed all common maxims and found that they all come in opposites. For every “too many cooks spoil the broth” there was a “many hands make light work”. It’s not that one version has adherents who war against the followers of the other. It’s that sometimes we believe in one and other times we believe in the other. Applied to this case, I would say that owning property and accumulating wealth starts to allow for additional self-categorisations using previously unavailable identities. With those new self-categorisations come the salience of alternative ideologies, which now exist in parallel within the same brain. Not replacing, not dominating, just co-existing. Like a scientist can also be religious.

 

[kabbes]

Gove is keen on housing. Before he was a big Htler appeaser Chamberlain was about house building. Of course Goves party shot down mandatory building targets the other day. Not so long ago you had some young bright blue sort cons moaning about how do you create capitalists when nobody under 40 has any capital.

The ultimate incompetence of the current Tory government — they haven’t even understood how to build a world that favours them in the long-term.

 

[ska invita]

I would say “yes and” in answer to this. Yes, it does have an effect. But the effect is not a change, it’s an accretion. There is no one “ideology” that people have. Ideologies are inherently dilemmatic — we all associate with identities that contain conflicting ideologies. You can even see this in daily aphorisms — in 1605, Francis Bacon listed all common maxims and found that they all come in opposites. For every “too many cooks spoil the broth” there was a “many hands make light work”. It’s not that one version has adherents who war against the followers of the other. It’s that sometimes we believe in one and other times we believe in the other. Applied to this case, I would say that owning property and accumulating wealth starts to allow for additional self-categorisations using previously unavailable identities. With those new self-categorisations come the salience of alternative ideologies, which now exist in parallel within the same brain. Not replacing, not dominating, just co-existing. Like a scientist can also be religious.

sure people are complex - but they start voting tory more, its that simple

 

[ska invita]

they also more likely start hanging out with other wealthier propertied people, living in different areas etc etc othering themselves away from the precarious parts of the working class

 

[brogdale]

sure people are complex - but they start voting tory more, its that simple

Not quite; more of them vote tory as the cohort ages.

 

[ska invita]

Not quite; more of them vote tory as the cohort ages.

thats what i thought i said, but if the meaning isnt clear then yes exactly

 

[ska invita]

The ultimate incompetence of the current Tory government — they haven’t even understood how to build a world that favours them in the long-term.

With right to buy they sold off council housing - it was a genius move by Thatcher in buying out huge sections of the working class and extending 'stakeholding' within the capitalist system....many other Tories were vehemently against it because it was seen as a hand out from the state - and it was just that, a handover of state assets to (working class) private hands.

There has been house building going on but its private sector and unaffordable. Under no version of reality are the Tories about to start building council housing, which is what is really needed.

 

[prunus]

Not quite; more of them vote tory as the cohort ages.

A greater proportion of those that vote do, the actual number voting Tory might be smaller; without demographic (death rate) and voting numbers we cannot tell from that data if the effect is changes of attitude or differential dying off of left leaning people or excess disillusion with voting among the same. Also the Gen Z data is missing from the graphs, but influential as the graphs show deviation from national average; perhaps gen Zers become massive more left voting as time passes, bringing the average down and making the deviation from average of eg boomers grow without any changes in voting patterns in that group (NB the leftward drift in the millennials shown will be having that effect, if real; perhaps millennials are voting the same and the other groups’ rightward surge is making millennials look leftward drifting).

I’m not saying any of that is likely, but a fiver says none of it has been excluded in the original analysis, and always beware of implicit assumptions in analysis, especially when such assumptions support your thesis…

 

[kabbes]

A greater proportion of those that vote do, the actual number voting Tory might be smaller; without demographic (death rate) and voting numbers we cannot tell from that data if the effect is changes of attitude or differential dying off of left leaning people or excess disillusion with voting among the same. Also the Gen Z data is missing from the graphs, but influential as the graphs show deviation from national average; perhaps gen Zers become massive more left voting as time passes, bringing the average down and making the deviation from average of eg boomers grow without any changes in voting patterns in that group (NB the leftward drift in the millennials shown will be having that effect, if real; perhaps millennials are voting the same and the other groups’ rightward surge is making millennials look leftward drifting).

I’m not saying any of that is likely, but a fiver says none of it has been excluded in the original analysis, and always beware of implicit assumptions in analysis, especially when such assumptions support your thesis…

While we’re querying the analysis itself, I’d also note that the UK millennial graph does not, to my eye, adequately represent the underlying data points. They’ve extrapolated a downward curve, whereas to me it looks roughly level (and is arguably turning upwards at the end).

 

[brogdale]

A greater proportion of those that vote do, the actual number voting Tory might be smaller; without demographic (death rate) and voting numbers we cannot tell from that data if the effect is changes of attitude or differential dying off of left leaning people or excess disillusion with voting among the same. Also the Gen Z data is missing from the graphs, but influential as the graphs show deviation from national average; perhaps gen Zers become massive more left voting as time passes, bringing the average down and making the deviation from average of eg boomers grow without any changes in voting patterns in that group (NB the leftward drift in the millennials shown will be having that effect, if real; perhaps millennials are voting the same and the other groups’ rightward surge is making millennials look leftward drifting).

I’m not saying any of that is likely, but a fiver says none of it has been excluded in the original analysis, and always beware of implicit assumptions in analysis, especially when such assumptions support your thesis…

Saw this useful graphic today:


Seems to indicate that the cohort born 1955 - 1965 were persuaded by the Thatcherite turn, as young voters, to support the dismantling of the social contract to an extraordinary level, quite out of step with other eras.

That cohort, now aged 58 to 68, still show a considerable propensity to vote and obviously played a significant part in the 2016 referendum turnout.

 

[The39thStep]

Saw this useful graphic today:

View attachment 357894
Seems to indicate that the cohort born 1955 - 1965 were persuaded by the Thatcherite turn, as young voters, to support the dismantling of the social contract to an extraordinary level, quite out of step with other eras.

That cohort, now aged 58 to 68, still show a considerable propensity to vote and obviously played a significant part in the 2016 referendum turnout.

Any numbers though for the 18-24 vote ?

 

[brogdale]

Any numbers though for the 18-24 vote ?

This sort of thing?

 

[The39thStep]

This sort of thing?

View attachment 357900

Thanks , I should have been clearer as I meant turn out ie how many actually voted over that period from the 70s onward .

 

[brogdale]

Thanks , I should have been clearer as I meant turn out ie how many actually voted over that period from the 70s onward .

Oh, I see.
I'm not aware of any such linear data that follows a specific cohort, but the evidence of turnout by age is well documented.