This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The hypothesis fits the information that we have and nothing else does.

I might be missing something, but isn't it a fallacy to base an argument about turnout off of the number of dead voters?

I don't mean to be rude, but I think you've not thought this argument through. Turnout drops in the UK in the 90s occurred across age cohorts; even the *living* 65+ y/o voters showed up less after 1992. Also, declines in turnout occurred during the 90s and 00s almost everywhere: in the US, UK, Canada, NZ, France (started in the 80s, actually), and even Australia (it was, like, 1 point, but still). If your theory of generational replacement were true - and we're talking about voter age cohort proportions and not turnout because, again, dead people don't vote no matter what the GOP says - then you'd see proportional drops in each country depending on life expectancy and age/population distribution.*

For the hell of it, as an alternative theory based on a modicum of statistical data, perhaps it's the *other* side of the generational span that's the culprit? Starting after the Cold War young people didn't become first time voters the way preceding generations did. That's born out by age-bracketed turnout data in the UK and Canada, but admittedly a lot more analysis would be needed to offer a serious argument.

As for Corbyn, he was clearly closer to the 'right answer' (whatever that's supposed to mean) to the question posed by the collapse of late 20th/early 21st century neoliberalism than the Labour right or the Lib Dems or the Greens or even the pre-UKIP-absorption Tories were able to offer - he did get 40% of the vote, after all. If the pearl clutching centrists of 2015-2017 had had the humility to stop looking down their noses at him, they might have had a chance to use Corbyn to preserve the world they built - and have subsequently lost.

*Also, your subsequent attribution of the pre-baby boom generation's high turnout to formative experiences instilling hostility to 'populism' seems more like wishful thinking (or is it projection?)

This is a certified Labour Left moment. "the collapse of neoliberalism!" as Britons enjoy prosperity and wealth, "Corbyn got 40%," ignoring his 33% 2 years later. 

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The hypothesis fits the information that we have and nothing else does.

I might be missing something, but isn't it a fallacy to base an argument about turnout off of the number of dead voters?

I don't mean to be rude, but I think you've not thought this argument through. Turnout drops in the UK in the 90s occurred across age cohorts; even the *living* 65+ y/o voters showed up less after 1992. Also, declines in turnout occurred during the 90s and 00s almost everywhere: in the US, UK, Canada, NZ, France (started in the 80s, actually), and even Australia (it was, like, 1 point, but still). If your theory of generational replacement were true - and we're talking about voter age cohort proportions and not turnout because, again, dead people don't vote no matter what the GOP says - then you'd see proportional drops in each country depending on life expectancy and age/population distribution.*

For the hell of it, as an alternative theory based on a modicum of statistical data, perhaps it's the *other* side of the generational span that's the culprit? Starting after the Cold War young people didn't become first time voters the way preceding generations did. That's born out by age-bracketed turnout data in the UK and Canada, but admittedly a lot more analysis would be needed to offer a serious argument.

As for Corbyn, he was clearly closer to the 'right answer' (whatever that's supposed to mean) to the question posed by the collapse of late 20th/early 21st century neoliberalism than the Labour right or the Lib Dems or the Greens or even the pre-UKIP-absorption Tories were able to offer - he did get 40% of the vote, after all. If the pearl clutching centrists of 2015-2017 had had the humility to stop looking down their noses at him, they might have had a chance to use Corbyn to preserve the world they built - and have subsequently lost.

*Also, your subsequent attribution of the pre-baby boom generation's high turnout to formative experiences instilling hostility to 'populism' seems more like wishful thinking (or is it projection?)

This is a certified Labour Left moment. "the collapse of neoliberalism!" as Britons enjoy prosperity and wealth, "Corbyn got 40%," ignoring his 33% 2 years later. 

Typically incisive contribution from you

The primary cause of the Corbyn insurgency was that "prosperity and wealth" in the UK is skewed.

Thanks!

Except that most Britons don't share that view, at least as you express it.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The hypothesis fits the information that we have and nothing else does.

I might be missing something, but isn't it a fallacy to base an argument about turnout off of the number of dead voters?

I don't mean to be rude, but I think you've not thought this argument through. Turnout drops in the UK in the 90s occurred across age cohorts; even the *living* 65+ y/o voters showed up less after 1992. Also, declines in turnout occurred during the 90s and 00s almost everywhere: in the US, UK, Canada, NZ, France (started in the 80s, actually), and even Australia (it was, like, 1 point, but still). If your theory of generational replacement were true - and we're talking about voter age cohort proportions and not turnout because, again, dead people don't vote no matter what the GOP says - then you'd see proportional drops in each country depending on life expectancy and age/population distribution.*

For the hell of it, as an alternative theory based on a modicum of statistical data, perhaps it's the *other* side of the generational span that's the culprit? Starting after the Cold War young people didn't become first time voters the way preceding generations did. That's born out by age-bracketed turnout data in the UK and Canada, but admittedly a lot more analysis would be needed to offer a serious argument.

As for Corbyn, he was clearly closer to the 'right answer' (whatever that's supposed to mean) to the question posed by the collapse of late 20th/early 21st century neoliberalism than the Labour right or the Lib Dems or the Greens or even the pre-UKIP-absorption Tories were able to offer - he did get 40% of the vote, after all. If the pearl clutching centrists of 2015-2017 had had the humility to stop looking down their noses at him, they might have had a chance to use Corbyn to preserve the world they built - and have subsequently lost.

*Also, your subsequent attribution of the pre-baby boom generation's high turnout to formative experiences instilling hostility to 'populism' seems more like wishful thinking (or is it projection?)

This is a certified Labour Left moment. "the collapse of neoliberalism!" as Britons enjoy prosperity and wealth, "Corbyn got 40%," ignoring his 33% 2 years later. 

Typically incisive contribution from you

The primary cause of the Corbyn insurgency was that "prosperity and wealth" in the UK is skewed.

Again this militant rhetoric isn't helpful "insurgency" and other such terms make you look like a radical loon. Labour can't win an election without winning moderate voters.

Let them keep thinking 2021 Britain is 1917 Russia, it'll take them great places.