I await that too, yes.
Meanwhile, if the numbers are true, here are two interesting ones:
Among 18-24, Labour won every seat outside Scotland and Northern Ireland. Every single one. Tories, zero.
Among under 50, Labour won 420 seats, or 2/3 of the Parliament. I don't think anyone has ever done that, at least not since universal male suffrage.
Above that, the Con advantage was overwhelming, with over 65s yielding maybe 11 seats for Labour total.
I want to say that this age, 50, is a dividing line for something.
But what? Still believing in capitalism? Maybe, but then all these people who were for Brexit (on average older) thought the system had failed them.
Old media vs. new? Maybe.
More prone to traditional racism and nationalism, independently of position on Brexit or anything else?
As a group don't they have more to lose if the NHS tanks?
Richer? Presumably, but this divide is never going to be as great in Britain as in the US (leaving out the top 1% whose incomes/wealth take off into outer space in both countries).
Someone 65 today would have been 43 in 1997 (Blair election) and 30 in 1983 (Thatcher's high point). I expect the dividing line looked similar in 1979, when Thatcher was first elected, and probably also in 1997, when Blair had his landslide.
So is the lesson that the young always go more for Labour and the Cons keep the old farts, and gain new farts soon as they're old enough? Fuck-a.
In the US if they banned voting over 50 I'd lose my vote, but win most of the elections.
Also, there was a poll of 491 people who previously had a positive view of Corbyn, but now view him negatively. Saw only a screenshot at
https://www.facebook.com/kevin.ovenden/ ... 0029143046, so I'll summarize:
Respondents could choose more than one option, but regardless of how that adds up it showed without a doubt that a majority cited Corbyn's weakness or indecision as the reason, above all regarding Brexit. (Directly Brexit-related reasons added up to 43%, again given the caveat that one person could choose these twice or more.)
This is attributable to the way the endless Brexit debate split the vote along irrational lines, the centrist-Liberal "Remain" campaign's politically suicidal demands (placing a new referendum above winning the parliamentary election), and above all the years of attacks, sabotage, and sniping from within the Labour upper echelons.
Corbyn was forced into equivocations in the attempt to hold a Labour coalition together. In consequence Labour gained a few seats in the South and lost massively in the North and Scotland. Of course the latter vote was pro-Remain, so there was no easy solution to the conunundrum, but he should have stuck with his winning strategy of 2017.
By contrast, just 6 percent of the respondents say the policy program had moved too far to the left for them.
8 percent cite "anti-Semitism" and 4 percent mention "ties to terrorism," both accusations being factually false products of the right-wing and corporate-media smear campaigns.
Again, if Corbyn is to be faulted personally, then certainly for his misguided civility in the face of these constant and outrageous slanders, the most of serious of which, anti-Semitism, was sheer projection given that it is bread-and-butter for the Tories, including Johnson.
But these are the sorts of lies that the corporate media (which in UK is almost all owned directly by literal billionaires) and the BBC will dole out. That extends also to the United States, where attacks on Sanders using the very same accusations, including anti-Semitism, are likely coming.
.
