Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Proud of my cohort

How millennials are creating an 'electoral timebomb' for the Tories
Tim Shipman and Katie Tarrant
Saturday May 27 2023, 6.00pm, The Sunday Times

The Tories are facing an "electoral timebomb" because millennial voters regard them as dishonest, incompetent and out of touch, according to a report this week.

The report, by the Onward think tank, says they are the first generation that has not become more conservative as they have got older.

This is significant because millennials, which the report classes as aged 25 to 40, are already the most numerous single demographic group in 51 per cent of parliamentary seats, outnumbering the older Generation X (aged 41-55) and baby boomers (56-70) and the younger Generation Z (aged 18-24). They outnumber Generation X in two thirds of seats. The report's age boundaries depart from most definitions, which make baby boomers aged about 59-77; Gen X 42-58; millennials 27-41 and Gen Z 10-26.



"Millennials are the first demographic cohort not to become more right-wing as they age," says the report, entitled Missing millennials: why the Conservatives lost a generation, and how to win them back.

"They are failing to acquire many of the attributes that have traditionally moved voters rightwards: home ownership, secure and stable employment, starting families. Without a stake in society, their political preferences are trending in the opposite direction. In fact, they are the first generation to become more left-wing as they age."

The report is based on a poll of 8,000 people conducted by Focaldata in April. Onward also held four focus groups in March: in Stourbridge; Middlesbrough; and two in Basingstoke, one with parents and one with those who had no children.

Only 21 per cent of those aged between 25 and 40 said they would vote Conservative and a big majority — 62 per cent — said the Tories "deserve to lose the next election". Forty-five per cent said they would back Labour.

The report warns that the Tory "brand lies in tatters" among millennials, 72 per cent of whom thought the country was "going in the wrong direction". The top five attributes they associated with the Tories were all negative. Only 8 per cent thought the Conservatives "stand up for people like me" and 31 per cent thought they were "dishonest".

In the focus groups in Stourbridge and Basingstoke multiple voters described the Tories as "liars" and "incompetent". One parent in Basingstoke said they stood for: "Keep the rich, rich and the poor, poor."

By contrast, their top six views of Labour were positive — including "stands up for people like me", "relatable" and "has a vision for a country". The highest positive Tory attribute was "strong", cited by 12 per cent of millennials, but even there Labour beat them with 15 per cent.

When asked why they would not vote Conservative, 26 per cent of millennials said "they cannot be trusted to manage the economy", compared with 22 per cent of non-millennials and only 17 per cent of over-65s. The report concludes: "The market shock" caused by Liz Truss's 2022 mini-budget "has undermined one of the traditional strengths of the Conservative brand".

There are two glimmers of hope for the Tories. The first is that millennials like Rishi Sunak much more than his party. Among voters in their thirties, Sunak was 25 points more popular than the Conservative Party. Among the 25 to 30-year-olds he was still 20 points higher. By the time voters hit 50 views of Sunak and the Tories in general were almost the same. "This suggests that putting Sunak front and centre of the party's electoral efforts will be key for speaking to millennials and will not prove a drag for older voters," the report says.

These "pro-Sunak, non-Tory" voters are more likely to live in a city centre or town, have a good job or own their home than other millennials. "He's like the financially-minded person," said one in a Basingstoke focus group. "He might be able to sort the economy out."

However in a stark warning for Sunak, whose MPs voted to ditch housing targets, the clearest issue where millennials differ from the general population and the older generations is in worrying about the shortage of affordable housing. Twenty-nine per cent said it was their top concern, compared with 21 per cent of all voters.

Josh Collins, 31, a porter at Cambridge University, is typical. He is renting his brother's spare room and despite earning £30,000, more than the national average income, he regards owning a house as a pipe dream.

Collins voted Conservative in 2015 but now says: "I will never be able to afford to buy unless I come into a big load of money. I don't blame the Conservatives as such, but I don't think they've helped the working-class man. The nation feels like it is pushing towards a boiling point and housing could be one of those tipping points."

All voters care about the cost of living and the NHS. Millennials care much less about immigration (15 per cent called it a key issue compared with 36 per cent of baby boomers) and somewhat less about crime than older voters.

Sebastian Payne and Jim Blagden, the report's authors, found a second reason for Tory optimism. They dubbed the group "shy capitalists" because while the millennial group identified with left-wing values they supported specific centre-right policies.

Asked whether governments generally should prioritise equality or growth, the millennials prefered equality — like the younger Generation Z. But when asked whether they should keep more of their own money or pay more tax to support redistribution, they opted for lower taxes — similar to baby boomers.

Millennials also agreed with Generation Z that a person's position in society was mostly the result of elements outside their control instead of individual effort. But they agreed with the older baby boomers that big business provides opportunities for ordinary people instead of viewing it as exploitative.

"Economic policies tend to be ranked higher by millennials compared to the average person — policies like more generous parental leave, increasing the national minimum wage, and reducing income tax and national insurance contributions," the report says.

"Reducing income tax and national insurance is the fourth most popular policy among millennials, but only seventh most popular for the general population," they write. "There are some specific areas where a more compelling offering is required, namely housing and taxation."

As recently as the 1983 general election, the Tories led Labour by nine percentage points among 18 to 24-year-olds, and by 11 points among 25 to 34-year-olds. But by the 2019 election, Labour led by 43 points and 24 points respectively.

"If the Conservative Party is not constantly renewing its voting coalition and creating the next generation of Tory voters, it risks an electoral timebomb," Payne and Blagden write.

In a foreword to the report, Bim Afolami, MP for Hitchin & Harpenden, himself a millennial (born 1986) warns his colleagues: "People are meant to become more conservative as they age. Youthful idealism should gradually morph into hard–headed practical concerns for the economy, tax rates, building a family and being a more integral part of a community — all things that create a more conservative mindset.

"If it were true at periods in the past, it is certainly no longer so today. The millennial generation is not becoming more likely to vote Conservative as its members age, this situation is worsening, and we need to better understand it."

The pro-Sunak anti-Tory view isn't unique to Millenaials, he polls far better than the party. Unless something shifts, I expect the Tories will run a very, very presidential campaign at the next election - they'll run their campaign as Rishi Sunak, unfortunately associated with the Conservative Party.

Not surprised to see housing or tax as big issues. Housing we know about, but millenials are also properly in their careers now and experiencing student loan repayments, which basically adds 9% onto income tax (above £22k). So if you're a graduate, including the recent NI rise, and you're on a salary of £35-40k - then you'll already basically be on a marginal tax rate of 50%. Obviously £35-40k is above average salary but given that the average starting salary for graduates is around £30k I imagine many millenials will be hitting that sort of level. The combination of tax rates, thresholds, NI rates and the student loan thresholds are really concertinaed for graduates now.

[Tonitrus]

Trusting a newsource is not the same as agreeing with its bias.

No, but all too often there is a correlation.

[Sheilbh]

Interesting signs on the covid inquiry - there's two fronts that are striking. One is that the chair of the inquiry was unhappy with disclosure from the government, particularly the redactions of WhatsApp messages and is pushing for full, unredacted disclosure. The government and civil service position is that the redacted sections are "unambiguously irrelevent" - obviously the government and civil service always push against too much coming to light. There's two sides on it but even if it just disciplined people in government on how they use WhatsApp that would probably be a good thing

Second side is that she is going to look at the impact of austerity on preparedness in public health and the NHS. She has confirmed that Osborne and Cameron will be called to the inquiry.

UK ministers engaged in bitter fight to halt release of Covid secrets
As deadline approaches to hand over unredacted messages between Boris Johnson and his ministers, government could take legal action
Michael Savage and Toby Helm
Sat 27 May 2023 20.00 BST

Ministers have just days to decide whether to take the extraordinary step of launching legal action against the Covid inquiry, as part of their battle to keep secret a slew of sensitive messages from senior figures including Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak.

With just 48 hours remaining before the deadline to hand over unredacted messages and notes between Johnson and his ministers, the Observer understands the government is this weekend standing firm in its refusal to divulge the material.

Legal sources said it has only a matter of days to launch legal action to quash the demands from Heather Hallett, the former court of appeal judge and chair of the inquiry. She has warned that a failure to comply with her order would amount to a criminal offence punishable with a fine or imprisonment.

The battle is regarded as hugely important in shaping the inquiry, with the first public hearings just over two weeks away. It is set to see prominent Tories from across the last 13 years of government – including David Cameron and George Osborne – interrogated about the steps they took to prepare for a pandemic and the impact of austerity on the NHS's resilience. Lawyers for the inquiry have revealed they have cast their net "widely and with a fine mesh".

The Observer understands the Cabinet Office continues to argue that the inquiry does not have the power to compel it to hand over unredacted material that it deems "unambiguously irrelevant". Its legal team maintains that disclosure would hamper future policy discussions and set a harmful precedent. It cites the Human Rights Act and data protection laws.

However, senior figures are already warning any challenge is unlikely to succeed. Dominic Grieve, the former Tory attorney general, said: "They've either got to hand the material over, or they have got to bring judicial review proceedings on the basis that her request is unreasonable. I think it is likely they will be given pretty short shrift if they turn up at court to argue that.

"Seeing that Heather Hallett is cleared to a very high level of security, why should it matter that she sees the entirety of [the material]? She will decide what is relevant."

Charles Falconer, the former Labour lord chancellor, also told the Observer he believed Lady Hallett would "unquestionably" win. "It's completely wrong that the Cabinet Office – the heart of government – is trying to prevent the chair of the Covid inquiry from seeing material," he said. "She is very highly respected. She would not have insisted unless she thought she needed this material. [The government] should respect her and her inquiry and not stand in her way."

Correspondence involving more than 40 of the most senior figures in Johnson's government is covered by Hallett's ruling. It includes WhatsApp messages, diaries and notebooks from Johnson, but also communications from former No 10 adviser Dominic Cummings, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, who was deputy PM at the time, Matt Hancock, the then health secretary, and the cabinet secretary, Simon Case.

As chancellor during the pandemic, Sunak will be a crucial figure. His correspondence will be pored over in relation to the "eat out to help out" scheme. At the time, some experts feared it would help Covid to spread.

A judicial review of Hallett's demand must be brought within 14 days of her ruling. Legal sources said they believed the government had until 5 June to lodge a review unless there were "exceptional circumstances" for a further delay.

The inquiry is likely to be so vast that there is an expectation it will be suspended during the next general election campaign, when its proceedings could raise major problems for the Conservatives. Sources close to the inquiry said it would inevitably have to be paused given the political sensitivity of the issues before it.

The legal standoff emerged soon after new allegations emerged that Johnson may have breached lockdown rules at Chequers. The gatherings, mentioned in entries in his ministerial diary, were referred to the police by the Cabinet Office. Johnson is already awaiting the results of parliament's privileges committee over whether he misled MPs about lockdown gatherings.

A furious Johnson has rejected the latest allegations as "absolute nonsense". "It's ridiculous that elements in my diary should be cherry-picked and handed over to the police, to the privileges committee, without even anybody having the basic common sense to ask me what these entries referred to," he said. "None of them constitute a breach of the rules during Covid."

A battle between the inquiry and the Cabinet Office has been raging for weeks behind closed doors. It has now emerged that the inquiry used its significant legal powers, under section 21 of the Inquiries Act 2005, to demand unredacted documents. The Cabinet Office refused, claiming only "unambiguously irrelevant" material had been removed and that the inquiry's demands were unlawful.

Hallett then issued a ruling rejecting those protests, arguing it was for the inquiry to decide what could be relevant. In an ominous development for the government, she said she had seen information regarding discussions between Johnson and his advisers about the Metropolitan police's enforcement of Covid regulations following the murder of Sarah Everard. She said the information had originally been redacted.

The Cabinet Office told the Observer it was sticking by its position that only relevant material had to be handed over. A Cabinet Office spokesperson said: "We are fully committed to our obligations to the Covid-19 inquiry. As such, extensive time and effort has gone into assisting the inquiry over the last 11 months. We will continue to provide all relevant material, in line with the law, ahead of proceedings getting underway."

A spokesman for Johnson said: "We have and will continue to disclose all relevant material to the inquiry."

[Sheilbh]

Separately too nichely British (bats that might or might not exist!) for the general city planning thread but enjoyed this piece. Needless to say lots of commentators - over 500 but from the few I saw I think there are maybe just a few more builders than blockers:

Letter in the Times in response to this piece. Hard to disagree that it doesn't need to be this heard

[Sheilbh]

Shame it's in a right-wing online media outlet instead of every paper but really good piece on the injustice of IPP sentences:

Not justice, by a long stretch
Thousands of petty criminals face life in jail because of a failed sentencing policy
June 2023
By    Yuan Yi Zhu

In January, truck driver Fabian Greco pled guilty to assaulting another motorist, dislocating his jaw and leaving him unable to work for weeks. The judge was minded to send him to prison for 18 weeks, but imposed a suspended sentence instead because the government had asked judges to "relieve the pressure on the prison estates" because "the prisons are full".

The government denied having issued such guidance, a stance rather belied by its activation of contingency plans to lock up sentenced prisoners in police cells because of the lack of prison space.

Meanwhile, at the other end of the country, Danny Weatherson, who was convicted of attempted robbery when he was 17, was still in prison after serving 18 years of a 15 month minimum sentence.

He did not hurt anyone during the attempted robbery of a coat and a mobile phone; the reason for him spending more time in prison than many rapists is simply that he had received an imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentence, an exquisitely cruel punishment abolished a decade ago, but which still continues to clog England's prisons.

Between them, these two men's vastly different experiences reflect a basic fact about the British state's current dysfunction, namely that it manages to be cruel and ineffective at the same time.

Whole categories of crime have become de facto decriminalised through lack of police investigation and prosecution, while petty criminals who offended decades ago are still imprisoned simply because of when they were sentenced. The state cannot imprison criminals, and yet it cannot release them either.

IPP sentences seemed like a good idea when they were introduced by New Labour as an indeterminate sentence for dangerous offenders whose crimes did not attract the penalty of imprisonment for life.

Those sentenced to IPP sentences had to serve a prescribed minimum amount of time in prison, but would only be released — if at all — if they could convince the Parole Board that they were no longer dangerous, for instance by — in true British public sector fashion — completing rehabilitative courses in prison.

So much for the theory. Instead, they turned into de facto life sentences for relatively low-level offenders, many of them non-violent. Petty miscreants, who would normally serve a few months or years in prison, found themselves potentially locked up forever because of the way they were sentenced. Those who tried to complete the programmes required by the Parole Board often could not do so because the Prison Service did not have enough places for them.

Absurdities abounded within the IPP regime: one man received an IPP sentence with a minimum tariff of 28 days, meaning that he could spend anywhere between a month and the rest of his life in prison. A decade after IPP sentences were abolished under David Cameron, 97 per cent of the IPP-sentenced prisoners who are still in prison — almost 3,000 in total — are past their tariff expiry date.

Almost 200 prisoners who received tariffs of less than two years have served at least a decade over their tariff. Unsurprisingly, self-harm is rife among IPP-sentenced prisoners; at least 74 have committed suicide so far.

IPP sentences are so bad that even David Blunkett, the man who introduced them and not exactly a bleeding-heart liberal, has publicly expressed his regret for his role in its creation. Among other vocal parliamentary critics are peers such as Claire Fox and Lord Moylan, neither known for their adherence to fad causes championed by the Howard League.

The solution would seem simple enough. Allow judges to resentence all prisoners still serving IPP sentences via statute, so that the likes of Danny Weatherson, locked up for trying to rob a black-and-white cell phone shortly after the invasion of Iraq when he was too young to buy cigarettes, can turn over their prison places to more deserving delinquents. As a former lord chief justice put it (with somewhat greater eloquence), Parliament made this mess, so Parliament must fix it.

But successive lord chancellors have refused to consider this approach, even though they have all accepted that IPP sentences should not have been introduced in the first place.

At a time of widespread public anger over crime and inadequate policing and sentencing, no politician wants to be responsible for the release of thousands of prisoners, some of whom will inevitably reoffend. Everything else being equal, it is much better politically for a crime to have been committed by someone who hasn't been recently released from prison than by someone who has.

No one has ever been punished at the ballot box for being too tough on criminals, and this will not change anytime soon. But even those who are in favour of tougher criminal punishments — and I happily admit to being one of them — should be concerned that thousands of people are serving open-ended sentences today not necessarily because of the seriousness of their conduct, but simply because they happen to have been convicted between 4 April 2005 and 3 December 2012.

IPP campaigners are a little hopeful as there's recently been a parliamentary debate on the issue and the new Secretary of State for Justice seemed open to fixing it.

[garbon]

Why did Phillip Schofield do that interview?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jun/02/phillip-schofield-says-his-career-over-this-morning-bbc

Schofield's reference is to his former lover, whom he met when the man was a 15-year-old boy at drama school and whom he followed on Twitter "totally innocent[ly]" after a friend told him the boy was a fan.

He denied flirting with the boy and said he was "hardly" in touch which him other than to offer career advice and give him work experience at the studio, until the man was 20 or 21, and had begun working at ITV. Schofield was married at the time.

He said that there was "absolutely not" a moment of initial sexual attraction, and replied "no, god, no" to the question of whether he had a sexual relationship when the boy was underage

[Sheilbh]

His agency dumped him. They are famously aggressive and have a lot of very prominent UK TV stars (Simon Cowell, Ant and Dec, Tess Daly, Rylan etc). Obviously they're very good at getting their clients good jobs but also if a paper tries to run a negative story on any of their clients then they blacklist them for all their clients.

Apparently Schofield as well as losing them hasn't even been able to get anyone to do crisis PR - so I suspect he's not being well advised (or advised at all) at the minute which might explain the interview as well as the weird statements on Instagram.

Also find it slightly funny how much GB News has become the clearing house on this story for all sorts of personal reasons. You've got Dan Wooton who had tried to get signed by Schofield's agency but they passed on him, Eamonn Holmes who had the This Morning host rivalry with Schofield, but also guests like Kim Woodburn or Jodie Marsh who are cleary people Schofield kicked on his way up and are really enjoying their chance to kick him on the way down

On the one hand I keep on thinking it's a really pretty trivial story and I don't want to hear anything else about it unless there's an actual allegation of criminality or some update on the management at ITV (which sounds poor to say the least). On the other I find myself wondering what Fern Britton knew and when and really enjoying the D list celebrities going in double footed...So

[Josquius]

Why did Phillip Schofield do that interview?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jun/02/phillip-schofield-says-his-career-over-this-morning-bbc

Schofield's reference is to his former lover, whom he met when the man was a 15-year-old boy at drama school and whom he followed on Twitter "totally innocent[ly]" after a friend told him the boy was a fan.

He denied flirting with the boy and said he was "hardly" in touch which him other than to offer career advice and give him work experience at the studio, until the man was 20 or 21, and had begun working at ITV. Schofield was married at the time.

He said that there was "absolutely not" a moment of initial sexual attraction, and replied "no, god, no" to the question of whether he had a sexual relationship when the boy was underage

Well, that explains why this is a story. Seeing it reported on the news it just seemed to be typical shitty media focus on unimportant stuff. Guy cheats on his wife (with a guy shock horror hashtag 1960s housewife). The end.
But that he knew this guy since he was a kid and got him the job on the show....that all smells rather groomy.

[HVC]

How much does this have to do with his brother?

[Sheilbh]

How much does this have to do with his brother?

Nothing I've seen reported - though obviously people are making that link.

But that he knew this guy since he was a kid and got him the job on the show....that all smells rather groomy.

Yeah and there is a power difference obviously. Although, ultimately, the age of consent is 16 and something that feels socially weird shouldn't be treated the same as a crime.

It is why I feel like I don't really want to hear any more unless there's actually allegation of criminality or some internal report on ITV's management failures.

[HVC]

I've read a bit (I'm addicted to the Dailymail, pray for my soul) and my first impression was itv was getting blowback about letting him go in favour keeping the other host so they leaked some stuff to turn the tide.

But then then possible groomer timeline came out and I read about his brother so I wasn't sure

[garbon]

How much does this have to do with his brother?

That's why I originally thought this story was gaining traction as easy to link the two.

Now that this information has come out in the interview, doesn't feel like as unfair a brush.

[garbon]

How much does this have to do with his brother?

Nothing I've seen reported - though obviously people are making that link.

But that he knew this guy since he was a kid and got him the job on the show....that all smells rather groomy.

Yeah and there is a power difference obviously. Although, ultimately, the age of consent is 16 and something that feels socially weird shouldn't be treated the same as a crime.

[BpIt is why I feel like I don't really want to hear any more(/b] unless there's actually allegation of criminality or some internal report on ITV's management failures.

He's the one who did the interview.

[Sheilbh]

I've read a bit (I'm addicted to the Dailymail, pray for my soul) and my first impression was itv was getting blowback about letting him go in favour keeping the other host so they leaked some stuff to turn the tide.

Yeah - I think the other angle is who knew what when. Obviously the line is that Schofield was lying to everyone - which doesn't seem sustainable/what was the culture in ITV or on This Morning.

As ever with British media stories on the British media (or lack of stories - Nick Cohen) a lot of what is going on is personal grudge settling. With Schofield in particular there have been rumours - less about this and more about him just being really nasty - for a very long time. Now he's lost the protection of his agency, the tabloids are going to go in and will have entire folders of stuff on him.

For the last year or so there have been cryptic reports about This Morning and Phil and Holly, which have been weirdly prominent. I think the read I've had from people in the media was that basically the tabloids couldn't legal the stories on him - because even the worst tabloids need to get over privacy and libel issues - but they were making it clear they had a story. And, ultimately, the allegations were two men over the age of consent had a workplace affair - I imagine they had to work hard to find the public interest angle

But then then possible groomer timeline came out and I read about his brother so I wasn't sure

That stuff's been online for a while. Of all people he should know the risks of that given the interview with Cameron when he presented him with his list from "online research" of potential child abusers in politics

[garbon]

I do sort of like that Boris just handed over his whatsapp messages directly himself after the recent drama.