strange numbers for SNP with no o-levels / GCSEs: in scotland we don't have A-levels, O-levels or GCSEs. those over 50 have O-grades, which are at least directly relatable to O-levels. maybe this is skewing the responses and you need to reword your questions?
The former is just a small sample issue - and have no fear, Scottish people are placed in comparable categories by YouGov - I am using the E&W names because of space issues. So Scots should be in comparable categories along the lines you suggest.
Boomer One Nation Tory here, would never vote Labour, formerly Bromley Conservative Association chairman, not voting for the current Mancunian Economic Liberal Wokists masquerading as the Conservative Party. If they stand here on the Wight I would probably vote SDP.
I wonder if you could map similar data for Conservative MPs who consistently vote for pro-over 60s / NIMBY-esque legislation of the type that's destroying them now? Disclaimer - am Gen X.
Wouldn't differential voting rates between the age groups be an additional factor? It would play well for the Tories, and given the shenanigans with upcoming requirements for voter ID, they appear to be intending to major on it.
Your posting implies younger voters cannot or cannot be bothered to identify themselves to vote. Is that because you think they are lazy, fraudulent or what.
It's a deliberate policy thing - like over 60s oyster cards are valid ID, while young person oyster cards are not, driving license valid ID but college ID card or NUS card not valid. Plus there are reasons why younger people are less likely to register - they are more likely to be mobile for jobs or housing for example, and therefore less likely to register to vote (especially if the government is making it deliberately harder to combat non-existent vote fraud)
As someone with a Statistics A-level, I find this sort of stuff fascinating. Real skill to take such a mass of information and interpret what it might mean for the future. And a Verve lyric thrown in as well!
Fascinating stuff, thanks for digging into the data. I don’t suppose the housing tenure voting intention splits into under/over fifties? I’d be fascinated to see if there’s any differences there between the two groups given the different experiences with buying homes in different periods, though I imagine small sub samples might be an issue.
Retired. Home owner. Educated. Reasonably well off. Happy with supply side, small state, low tax. Distressed and disgusted with net zero. Joined party to vote out May. Will not vote conservative next time to punish.
The sooner the boomers die out.......the better!!! Nothing wrong with net zero provided it's applied correctly. The evidence is there. Can you prove otherwise?
We have had four major glaciations in the last half a million years or so. Each time warm times turned cool, concentration of co2 in the atmosphere stayed high for long periods. If co2 was the main driver of warming that could not have happened. Professor Pascal Richet wrote that up.
Also, the concentration of co2 ranged from around 150ppm at the coldest to 280 ppm at the warmest, with never any catastrophic runaway warming as co2 rose, following temperature. Warmer seas outgassed co2, normal physics. But here we are at over 400 ppm and temperatures are lower than in medieval, Roman and Minoan times, so it is hard to see co2 as a driver.
Then we have recent work by Professors Happer and Wijngarden which shows that while you do indeed get some warming from low concentration, the effect wanes. Doubling from here would add about one degree centigrade which I would quite like, since cold kills many more people than heat.
Lastly, the little co2 we have added over natural variation has contributed to record crops, less suffering.
So co2 is a boon and net zero an unnecessary cost and harm.
But it’s not quite like that! Plants give half their CO2 at night so it isn’t quite true. Secondly we are not dealing with CO2 but CO1 which is far more dangerous. This is why Net Zero is a good idea!
BUT it’s NOT co2 but co1which is far more lethal! Also it’s not the change itself but the speed of change. What you mentioned took at least decades whilst this climate change is done within years or quicker! It is probably an excuse to do nothing whilst the younger generation have to clean up the mess our generation caused! i.e.laziness and arrogance on behalf of Conservatives!
Ditto. Left Tories 1972-3 over the EEC/EU. They have no consistent philosophy and seem to exist only as an alternative brand on the soft left: high spending, high tax, high immigration and low feeling for the voters.
Hats off! Excited to read more of these in the future!
Thanks Eze
strange numbers for SNP with no o-levels / GCSEs: in scotland we don't have A-levels, O-levels or GCSEs. those over 50 have O-grades, which are at least directly relatable to O-levels. maybe this is skewing the responses and you need to reword your questions?
The former is just a small sample issue - and have no fear, Scottish people are placed in comparable categories by YouGov - I am using the E&W names because of space issues. So Scots should be in comparable categories along the lines you suggest.
Wishful thinking lol
Fascinating
Fantastic analysis, Ben! Really looking forward to reading more soon!
Boomer One Nation Tory here, would never vote Labour, formerly Bromley Conservative Association chairman, not voting for the current Mancunian Economic Liberal Wokists masquerading as the Conservative Party. If they stand here on the Wight I would probably vote SDP.
We look forward you to ceasing to be unhelpful for society, we hope it's before you meet your end!
Que?
I wonder if you could map similar data for Conservative MPs who consistently vote for pro-over 60s / NIMBY-esque legislation of the type that's destroying them now? Disclaimer - am Gen X.
Wouldn't differential voting rates between the age groups be an additional factor? It would play well for the Tories, and given the shenanigans with upcoming requirements for voter ID, they appear to be intending to major on it.
Your posting implies younger voters cannot or cannot be bothered to identify themselves to vote. Is that because you think they are lazy, fraudulent or what.
It's a deliberate policy thing - like over 60s oyster cards are valid ID, while young person oyster cards are not, driving license valid ID but college ID card or NUS card not valid. Plus there are reasons why younger people are less likely to register - they are more likely to be mobile for jobs or housing for example, and therefore less likely to register to vote (especially if the government is making it deliberately harder to combat non-existent vote fraud)
As someone with a Statistics A-level, I find this sort of stuff fascinating. Real skill to take such a mass of information and interpret what it might mean for the future. And a Verve lyric thrown in as well!
Superb research and analysis, data which supports the longstanding hypothesis of A Very Public Sociologist
Great article; bad Fitzgerald impression.
Fascinating stuff, thanks for digging into the data. I don’t suppose the housing tenure voting intention splits into under/over fifties? I’d be fascinated to see if there’s any differences there between the two groups given the different experiences with buying homes in different periods, though I imagine small sub samples might be an issue.
Retired. Home owner. Educated. Reasonably well off. Happy with supply side, small state, low tax. Distressed and disgusted with net zero. Joined party to vote out May. Will not vote conservative next time to punish.
The sooner the boomers die out.......the better!!! Nothing wrong with net zero provided it's applied correctly. The evidence is there. Can you prove otherwise?
Yes, I think I can.
We have had four major glaciations in the last half a million years or so. Each time warm times turned cool, concentration of co2 in the atmosphere stayed high for long periods. If co2 was the main driver of warming that could not have happened. Professor Pascal Richet wrote that up.
Also, the concentration of co2 ranged from around 150ppm at the coldest to 280 ppm at the warmest, with never any catastrophic runaway warming as co2 rose, following temperature. Warmer seas outgassed co2, normal physics. But here we are at over 400 ppm and temperatures are lower than in medieval, Roman and Minoan times, so it is hard to see co2 as a driver.
Then we have recent work by Professors Happer and Wijngarden which shows that while you do indeed get some warming from low concentration, the effect wanes. Doubling from here would add about one degree centigrade which I would quite like, since cold kills many more people than heat.
Lastly, the little co2 we have added over natural variation has contributed to record crops, less suffering.
So co2 is a boon and net zero an unnecessary cost and harm.
But it’s not quite like that! Plants give half their CO2 at night so it isn’t quite true. Secondly we are not dealing with CO2 but CO1 which is far more dangerous. This is why Net Zero is a good idea!
BUT it’s NOT co2 but co1which is far more lethal! Also it’s not the change itself but the speed of change. What you mentioned took at least decades whilst this climate change is done within years or quicker! It is probably an excuse to do nothing whilst the younger generation have to clean up the mess our generation caused! i.e.laziness and arrogance on behalf of Conservatives!
Ditto. Left Tories 1972-3 over the EEC/EU. They have no consistent philosophy and seem to exist only as an alternative brand on the soft left: high spending, high tax, high immigration and low feeling for the voters.