Thursday, 15 June 2017

This YouGov election statistics page is a must-read - men saved us from disaster

Well done, you men - you 6% bias in favour of the Tories saved us! The other most significant statistic, I think, is this one:


Haves/have nots? Probably. Stakeholder/non-stakeholders, certainly. It suggests - as Thatcherite Tories saw so clearly - that the most effective bulwark against socialism is widespread property ownership. Which in turn suggests that this government better encourage the construction of as many houses/flats as possible in the shortest time possible and then make sure they're sold at at an affordable price, rather than rent them out at knock-down, subsidised rates - renters vote Labour, owners vote Conservative. Make sure that first-time buyers have homes they can afford to buy so that, by the time the next election is held, they'll vote to protect their asset rather than to punish their evil, capitalist landlord who has committed the sin of providing something people need at the market rate, the vicious bastard! 

As for the gender issue, I have no idea what's to be done. The sisterhood evidently prefer the idea of henpecking a peely-wally, feminised old man rather than being bossed around by a somewhat masculine old(ish) woman. I blame that Mrs. Thatcher. Then there's the compassion issue - politicians' hearts have to bleed every time they speak (as they must, all the time) about the poor, the downtrodden, the vulnerable, the exploited, the kiddies, the "young people" etc. Women require frequent displays of empathy from their leaders, preferably accompanied by tears and lashings of delicious, creamy virtue-signalling. This is - let's face it - not exactly the Tories' strongest suit. As for us men, well, we tend to prefer strength, sure-footedness, steadfastness: I suspect a far greater percentage of male voters would have backed Mrs. May had she not revealed herself, during the election campaign, to be severely deficient in all these departments. 

As for employment status, there's one major surprise:
Those in full-time employment preferred Labour by a margin of 6%? Is that the "just about managing" effect? Wages not keeping pace with inflation? Do they seriously imagine they'll be better off under Labour in its present incarnation, whose main appeal is to those who don't pay any tax? I could always see the appeal of Old Labour - unions, job protection, inflation-busting wage deals etc. But this lot? Is it perfectly understandable resentment against those at the top of the economic pile, who seem to make out like bandits no matter how badly they cock things up? Presumably this explains Mrs. May's cackhanded pitch to the "just about managing" with socialistic nonsense about energy price freezes and workers on boards and suchlike. Well, they evidently didn't buy it.

The figures for voting according to education are less surprising:
This makes sense if the figures for "degree or above" include those currently studying/protesting at a college or university. One would, in any case, expect there to be a slight Labour bias among graduates, as our universities have long been socialist propaganda mills, and there's no proposal so stupid or dangerous that an intellectual won't eagerly support it. But a 17% gap would suggest the thinking classes have so utterly lost their minds that they think its time for us to be ruled by really thick people.

I've no idea what Tory Party Central Office will make of these figures, if anything. What they really mustn't do is to draw all the wrong conclusions. One sensible thing Mrs. May has done so far is to announce an end to austerity, which has proved deeply unpopular, despite never actually happening. The Tories have been telling the British public for seven years that they've been suffering because of the 2008 crash while simultaneously continuing to spend borrowed money, printing pretend-money and telling everyone they've never had it so bad. As the Tories haven't had the guts to tell the truth and impose much-needed actual austerity - which might have seen the books balanced and a chunk the national debt paid off by now - they might as well tell voters that austerity has been abandoned, and then go on doing roughly what they were doing before. After all, as the 2008 crash demonstrated, in order for a Ponzi scheme to work, you have to convince the suckers that everything is going swimmingly. Can there be any doubt that Mrs. May isn't the politician to achieve that? 

The statistics on this page can all be found in "How Britain voted at the 2017 general election" on the YouGob website

10 comments:

  1. I read this blog - disbelief growing with every post.
    You don't want affordable rented homes to be available.
    No.
    You'd prefer people died in multi storey infernos.
    Because really, they're not your type of people...
    I'm seriously thankful I know no one like you.
    What an odious creature you are.
    How sad that you use your obvious literary talents spewing this type of noxious hate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for reading my blog.
      This post is obviously about what the Tories need to do to stop the country falling into the clutches of revolutionary socialists, rather than an attempt to address society's myriad ills.
      I was aware of the Grenfell Tower disaster when I wrote the post, but avoided mentioning it because the fire was still blazing, nobody knew why it had spread so rapidly, nobody knew how many people had died in it and there were already enough hysterical, emotionally incontinent, conscienceless idiots exploiting other people's pain, grief and shock in order to make cheap political points while frantically signalling what they imagine to be their own moral goodness. I'm not really a fan of malign compassion.
      I expect many "types" of people lost their lives or loved ones or friends in the fire. I'm certain many of them were or are my "type". If you mean "not members of your socio-economic class", say so. Many members of my socio-economic group are very definitely not my type.
      Sadly, I know quite a few people like you.
      Here's a tip: if you're going to accuse someone of "spewing...noxious hate", it's probably not a good idea to describe them, in the previous sentence, as an "odious creature". Pots and kettles etc.
      I can't imagine how you reached the conclusion that I possess "obvious literary talents." They've never been obvious to me.

      Delete
  2. It seems like a pretty fair statistical analysis Anonymous.
    Terrible tragedies have a way pushing folk into headless chicken mode.
    Since you brought up the recent inferno,there is one question that hasn't been properly addressed.
    I've been in a fire myself and know how difficult they are to control once they get a grip, and how easy they are to put out in the initial stages.
    Apparently it may have started out as a small electrical fire possibly from a fridge. A next door neighbour said it was a small fire in the kitchen. If so why wasn't it immediately smothered at source with anything that came to hand besides water?
    In the unlikely event there was no fire blanket handy, cushions and bedding could have done the job.
    Very sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not only that, southern man, there are reports that the man in that flat took allegedly took the time to pack a suitcase before raising the alarm. I've no idea if that's true, of course - no doubt the inquiry will reveal all.

      At the risk of embarrassing you, you were eating lunch in a poor section of a Third World city a few years ago when you heard a commotion in the street and saw smoke billowing out of one of the narrowly-packed, dilapidated houses across the road. You ran out of the restaurant and entered the burning house to assess what was happening, did what you could to smother the blaze, then organised a line of panicking locals so they could pass pails of filthy water to each other until they reached you at the head of the line, inside the house. Because of your cool-headedness and willingness to risk your own life, the blaze was extinguished and lives and property were saved. As a result, you ended up in hospital with a very serious infection, and your vocal cords have suffered permanent damage due to smoke inhalation.
      You made light of it all, of course - but bloody hell!
      But were the people you risked your life for really your "type"? And did you feel sufficiently compassionate and angry when you were putting out the fire? I think those are the really important issues here.

      Delete
  3. It's more likely there was not a fire blanket handy at the time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Low.
      You blame the deaths of 100+ on lack of a fire blanket. Wow.
      Be nice to see the sources for your claims re the tenant who fled the burning flat.
      Infowars? Breitbart?
      Cutting health and safety corners led to this hideous tragedy. Ideological contempt for renters - blatant disregard for human lives - elevation of cash over people - bullying and intimidation of those who dared to speak of their concerns regarding fire safety... folk who think and act as though we aren't connected; that community doesn't exist; that we dont need to take responsibility for each other - all of this and more lead to the obscenity of the Grenfell inferno.
      We achieve so much more when we act in unison.
      When we work together.
      Dog eat dog, laissez-faire, 'I'm all right jack' mentalities lead to societal breakdown.
      The Eriks and Scotts of this world - they are no doubt great company and they care in their own way... but even they cant achieve everything they want to without the help of others.

      Delete
  4. Gosh. Blame the victims.
    Your insight and compassion overwhelm.
    'Your type?' Simply a right wing laissez-faire trickle down 'i'm all tight jack, f* the rest of you' type.
    Best you go live in your little house on the prairie. Clearly society/community and notions of inter-dependence aren't part of your lexicon.

    I've never understood that particular failure of the right to recognise the pragmatic worth of a stronger welfare state and of regulation. You need a quiet biddable poor who'll work and live and whose activities will support yours. But nope. You'd rather cut corners and health and safety regs and have poor folk (My folk) living in slums.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous,these slums of yours, where are they?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Venezuela or Cuba, probably - you know, places where people have had the chance to really experience the pragmatic worth of a stronger welfare state and notions of inter-dependence.

      And remember, southern man, we mustn't start speculating about the cause of the fire - which, in any case, has nothing to do with the main issue of why it spread so rapidly - but we can safely blame the whole disaster on laissez-faire right-wingers for "cutting corners and safety regs", because that fits the standard narrative.

      Our SJW will probably be off to join his middle-class trustafarian comrades in the selfish, anti-democratic riot they and the Labour leadership are so busily fomenting. But, as he (or she) is now simply regurgitating left-wing boilerplate, I'll delete any further drivel she (or he) posts.

      It's such a shame - and the Tories are as much to blame as anybody - that so much political debate these days takes place on terms set by leftists, when the only remotely practical ideas for policies that might actually help disadvantaged Britons all emanate from the Right.

      Delete
  6. If it was a "small fire" that started in the kitchen it could have been smothered with cushions, or bedding.
    There may have been at least two people present at the time.

    ReplyDelete