Right now there is nothing at all about the Conservative Party brand that connects with the policy heuristics - the shortcuts - in young people’s thinking
Got to admit, I really don't understand why both authors use 18-29 or 18-35 as the definition of "young people" and then attempt to analyse voting intentions.
It's a very strange group, barely coherent. It should be split further, 18-23, which is essentially first time voters, then second or third time. Even 18-23 can be split (roughly 50/50) between education/employment. As age increases, you split by first/second job, or kids or whatever. There can be very different life stages.
So I read the Kaufman article. Not impressed. Several problems with it.
The words "Tory" or "Tories" occurs in the main text sixteen times (ignoring the photo). "Conservatives", six. That's a specific word choice made by the author, which tells us exactly where he's coming from. For a piece of reasoned analysis, that's not a good choice to be making.
First para : "The decline is real, and unprecedented, in modern Britain, with a Labour-Conservative age gap only emerging after 2010." No reason given. So, Student Loans, anyone?
The charts - aargh, why lump Labour, the LibDems and the Greens together?
Luntz is far, far more interesting, from the summary; "Attitudes are also sharply influenced by the party in government: Tories tended to feel their freedom was most at threat from crime, antisocial behaviour and migration, while Labour supporters chose politicians and government bureaucrats. Tory voters were also much more likely to trust the country’s leaders and institutions, and to believe the Government tends to give freedom (63%) rather than taking it away (37%). For Labour voters, the proportion was almost exactly the reverse."
The Conservative Party has never been strongly supported by the young. The young since birth are net recipients from the economy. They are sustained by their parents, from the State - everything is ‘free’ and they pay no tax. Redistribution - lots of free stuff paid for by somebody else - the turf of Labour, has high appeal to them. It’s only once they start paying tax and the money flow is in the opposite direction that fiscal conservatism brings appeal.
Got to admit, I really don't understand why both authors use 18-29 or 18-35 as the definition of "young people" and then attempt to analyse voting intentions.
It's a very strange group, barely coherent. It should be split further, 18-23, which is essentially first time voters, then second or third time. Even 18-23 can be split (roughly 50/50) between education/employment. As age increases, you split by first/second job, or kids or whatever. There can be very different life stages.
Ah, well.
So I read the Kaufman article. Not impressed. Several problems with it.
The words "Tory" or "Tories" occurs in the main text sixteen times (ignoring the photo). "Conservatives", six. That's a specific word choice made by the author, which tells us exactly where he's coming from. For a piece of reasoned analysis, that's not a good choice to be making.
First para : "The decline is real, and unprecedented, in modern Britain, with a Labour-Conservative age gap only emerging after 2010." No reason given. So, Student Loans, anyone?
The charts - aargh, why lump Labour, the LibDems and the Greens together?
Luntz is far, far more interesting, from the summary; "Attitudes are also sharply influenced by the party in government: Tories tended to feel their freedom was most at threat from crime, antisocial behaviour and migration, while Labour supporters chose politicians and government bureaucrats. Tory voters were also much more likely to trust the country’s leaders and institutions, and to believe the Government tends to give freedom (63%) rather than taking it away (37%). For Labour voters, the proportion was almost exactly the reverse."
Blimey.
The Conservative Party has never been strongly supported by the young. The young since birth are net recipients from the economy. They are sustained by their parents, from the State - everything is ‘free’ and they pay no tax. Redistribution - lots of free stuff paid for by somebody else - the turf of Labour, has high appeal to them. It’s only once they start paying tax and the money flow is in the opposite direction that fiscal conservatism brings appeal.