Tuesday 13 June 2023

Why do Millennials Hate the Tories?

As a Conservative Party watcher, it's always interesting when it or its allies try to grasp the predicament they're in and what they can do about it. The latest in this now burgeoning genre comes via the Missing Millennials report from the right wing think tank, Onward. The title gives the game away: it's interested in the hows and the whys of the 25-40 generation's antipathy toward their party, and it relies on survey data and focus groups to arrive at their answers. That alone puts it head and shoulders above its peers, who tend toward the conspiratorial for the reasons underpinning the downturn in the Tories fortunes. Indeed, this is exactly was Boris Johnson gestured to in his resignation statement.

What have former hack Sebastian Payne and Bim Afolami, the "intellectual" MP for Hitchin got to say about cratering Tory support among Millennials? Not as much as you might think. We find that for Millennials the top six traits they associate with the Conservatives are all negative, with 'dishonest' coming out significantly ahead of 'incompetent', 'out of touch', 'self-serving', 'breaks their promises', and 'divided'. Meanwhile Labour's traits are uniformly positive with 'stands up for people like me', followed by 'relatable', 'has a vision for the country', 'honest', 'competent', and 'strong' (p.14). LOTO will be quite happy with that. The only bright spot for the Tories is Rishi Sunak is personally popular among this cohort and far out polls his party. This does not translate into votes: only 21% would vote for the Tories.

On issues facing the country, alongside the rest of the population the economy/cost of living, the NHS, and the environment figures highly, but so does housing and, perhaps surprisingly, taxation (p.21). The latter two beating out crime and immigration. Only 14% are worried about immigration versus 20% for the rest of the population. But, interestingly, when asked about what their priorities are versus what they think is best for Britain (p.22) the picture changes. The cost of living crisis is top, followed by not being able to rely on the NHS, not having enough money for retirement, finding good affordable housing, and the economy falling behind other countries.

When it comes to culture and values, it's a story readers will be familiar with. Millennials are more socially liberal than the older generations (p.27), though curiously the report has 'raising children is worth the sacrifices you have to make' as a conservative value. Payne and Afolami also note 45% think politicians talk too much about economics and not cultural issues, though contrary to (their take on) popular belief they rank economic policies as more important than social policy. The former are defined as increasing the minimum wage and reducing taxes (p.29). The authors seem genuinely surprised that Millennials would be so occupied with things like the cost of living and being worried about their jobs.

It's here we hit what some might think is a bit of a puzzle. As a whole, the cohort is economically "centre left", preferring equality over growth and recognising where one ends up has little relationship to effort. But at the same time, as the authors put it they "prefer keeping more of their own money over more redistribution of incomes" (pp.31-2), a sentence that suggests a leading question was asked. However, it is consistent with other findings in the report, as well as other studies. For example, a similar point was noted five years ago in the New Blue collection, and in independent research by the (non-Tory) Thatcher Network. These "shy capitalists", as the report styles Millennials, are more centre right on these issues than the older generations.

This is how they summarise their take aways for their party:
Millennials are ‘shy capitalists’, which could give the Conservatives hope in the longer term. Similarly to the younger Generation Z cohort, they emphasise policies that promote equality but they are more like Boomers in their pro-business and low-tax focus. If the centre right can strike this balance, as it has done in the past, it may help build support for the Conservative Party.

Economics are more important than cultural issues to Millennials. Although this cohort leans towards the soft left on the so-called ‘culture war’, they have low salience compared to other issues that will drive their voting intentions.

Above all, Millennials are optimists who are looking to the future. From politicians of any hue, they are seeking an aspirational offering that is future facing and material to their lives at present. The Tories’ opportunity for improving their stand with Millennials is clear. They will need to be bold to win younger generations back. (p.35)
This place has made the point in the past that some younger voters supported Jeremy Corbyn precisely because he had the policies that satisfied their home-owning aspirations, and that the Tories were a barrier to this Thatcherite dream. However, while the broad thrust of the report reconfirms the findings mentioned above, some thought has to be given to the contexts of these policies and positions and how they are understood. For example, the desire for lower taxes among Millennials is entirely different to retired, home-owning boomers. For the latter, it's less pressure on their (mostly) fixed incomes and the understandable desire not to have their estates taxed to death when they pass their property on. For the former, the desire for lower taxes can't be divorced from stagnant wages, rampant inflation, underemployment, and precarious career paths. Theirs is the "Thatcherism" of necessity.

On the idea that big business takes advantage of people versus providing income and employment opportunities, one might suggest that's a false choice because it's self-evident the answer is both. It's a poor barometer of an attitude, in other words. And while Payne and Afolami are getting excited about business and taxes, the commitment to equality persists, which supposedly has "low salience" because it's "cultural". Or rather they prefer to ignore this irritating data point to try and offer their right wing readers a few crumbs of comfort.

What the report lacks is an appreciation of why the Tories do so poorly among this Millennials. It's not because they're not "delivering", it's because the Tories have gleefully hammered this generation into the earth. It has alienated the more prosperous Millennials through their reckless economics, empowered the parasitism of the land lords who eat huge chunks of Millennial wages, saddled those who went to university with a forever debt, allowed vulnerable and elderly relatives to die while leaving hundreds of thousands of the generation them without an income during the pandemic's acute phase, whipped up bigotry and hatred against themselves and their friends, and took them out of the European Union against their will. At every step, the rising generation of workers have found their interests crushed.

This is why the report is foolish to separate economics from culture. It's not just that the everyday lived reality of Millennials places them at odds with the Conservatives, it's more the case the Tories have pit themselves against the rising generation. The culture of anti-Toryism is by now deep-rooted and, indeed, it would be perverse were it otherwise because of the cruelties they have visited in younger people. If the "sensible" Tories like Payne and Afolami think their party can begin turning it around by prioritising economic growth and building a few more wind farms, that shows they have little sense of how big the crisis of political reproduction the Conservatives are facing is.

Image Credit

6 comments:

Phil said...

On the idea that big business takes advantage of people versus providing income and employment opportunities, one might suggest that's a false choice because it's self-evident the answer is both

Sounds like they're living in the past. Big business providing employment opportunities... as opposed to what? Hang your hat on a job for life at British Leyland? These days there are precious few job opportunities that aren't provided by big business.

Blissex said...

«some younger voters supported Jeremy Corbyn precisely because he had the policies that satisfied their home-owning aspirations, and that the Tories were a barrier to this Thatcherite dream.»

This statement is based on the very popular fantasy that many people have the thatcherite dream of being property owners.

That is quite wrong: many people have the thatcherite dream of being owners of an asset that doubles in prices every 7-10 years, tax-free, work-free, and ideally is bought on 20 times leverage, government guaranteed. It just happens that this asset is property. Privatized shares have not been as popular as right-buy sales because voters were not guaranteed that prices would double every 7-10 years and they cannot be bought on 20 times leverage (and you cannot live in them either :->).

Not many people would want to put their money into an asset whose price does not grow fast, while bearing a lot of debt for it at their own risk, and reduces their mobility and takes quite a bit of time and effort to manage. Indeed when these conditions happen and there is a protracted property price stagnation or fall lots of people want to sell to invest in something else.

There is a gigantic difference between property as a government-created profit-centre speculation and housing as a cost-centre necessity.

Indeed in those countries where property is not a one-way government guaranteed bet to MAKE MONEY FAST most people prefer to rent.

Those «younger voters supported Jeremy Corbyn» not because they want to redistribute to themselves large amounts from the lower classes like tory voters do, but because they wanted secure, affordable housing, and that what was Corbyn pushing, and I guess why "The Establishment" wanted to destroy him.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-22/opendoor-open-faces-an-expensive-path-to-profitability-in-real-estate
“From the minute the average couple busy a home they're constantly calculating how much they'll make when they sell it, and most won't sell for much less once that day comes.”

https://www.heritagemuseum.gov.hk/documents/2199315/2199693/Public_Housing-E.pdf
“Home Ownership Scheme
In the early stage of its implementation, the Ten-year Housing Programme only aimed to provide public rental housing (PRH) of a higher quality for needy people. With Hong Kong’s rapid economic growth, many people began to earn a stable income and accumulate savings. In response to this, in 1976 the Governor appointed a Working Party chaired by the Financial Secretary to investigate the planning and implementation of a Home Ownership Scheme (HOS). [...] From the sale of the first batch of HOS flats in 1978, the HOS was well received by the public. Almost all the sale exercises were oversubscribed. In more recent years, as property prices fell drastically, HOS flats apparently lost their attractiveness.”

http://www.24housing.co.uk/opening-gate
“In London, right to buy sales have been particularly frenetic since George Osborne increased the maximum discount in March 2013. ALMO Homes for Haringey manages the London Borough of Haringey’s 16,000-strong rented council housing stock. Sales applications rocketed almost sixfold since the £75,000 discount, from 105 applications in the 2011-2012 financial year to a whopping 642 applications for 2012-13. And in the same period, actual sales have boomed from eight to 79. Since the London £100,000 discount was introduced in March, Haringey has received 244 applications with 23 sales from April 2013 to July 2013 and expects the number of applications to total around 700 this year. [...] In the 12 months to the end of March 2013, 54 tenants in Wandsworth bought their council home compared with just two the previous year.”

Blissex said...

«On the idea that big business takes advantage of people versus providing income and employment opportunities, one might suggest that's a false choice because it's self-evident the answer is both»

Our blogger here falls for the propaganda that conflates "businesses" that provide «income and employment opportunities» and the very different category of "business owners" that «takes advantage of people».

A question here is whether "businesses" can only work well if there are "business owners" who push them, but nowadays most "business owners" are absentee owners, pretty much anonymous shareholders, and "businesses" are run by managers (often in their own interests rather than those of their workers or owners, but that's a big and different topic).

Blissex said...

«If the "sensible" Tories like Payne and Afolami think their party can begin turning it around by prioritising economic growth and building a few more wind farms, that shows they have little sense of how big the crisis of political reproduction the Conservatives are facing is.»

It is quite a slow crisis: our blogger as usual understates the wonderful effects of inheritance, and that many millennials are frantically waiting for theirs; and some of the better paid millennials have managed to get on the property ladder. So the number of property owners is shrinking even if the number of properties grows as property ownership becomes more concentrated but quite slowly.

There is another factor that boost the electoral prospects of Conservatives, New Labour, LibDems: the boom in immigration after Brexit means that many if not most new renters cannot vote (or even if Commonwealth citizens they often don't vote) in general elections, and the huge boost to housing costs from this immigration boom benefits mostly native propertied voters at the expense of immigrant renter non-voters, which is going to shape politics quite differently from a past when virtually everybody in the low-pay, high-rent classes had the right to vote.

David Parry said...

'Hang your hat on a job for life at British Leyland?'

Pretty sure that British Leyland was a large commercial enterprise (i.e. a big business), albeit state-owned.

'These days there are precious few job opportunities that aren't provided by big business.'

So you say, yet at the start of 2022, 51% of turnover was accounted for by SMEs. This isn't to praise SMEs, which very often are even more ruthless than big corporations when it comes to exploiting human labour power (they kind of have to be, given their disadvantaged position in the marketplace).

JN said...

As a millennial (currently 39 years old), my dream is not to have to pay rent my whole life, getting to retire at some point before I'm a complete physical wreck, not living in abject poverty in my old age (if I even live that long). More broadly, living in a fairly decent, just, compassionate society. It says a lot about UK politics that this isn't even on offer, even as an ideal, by the major parties. The Tories, Starmer-Blairite Labour, the Lib Dems: very clearly they just want us to work, work, work.... and then die. Fuck the environment, fuck people; profit uber alles! Yay, capitalism!