These old patterns explain a lot of voting behaviour..:until they don’t. It wasn’t that long ago that the Republicans were the party of the rich and the Democrats were the party of the white working class. In 1976 Marin County votes for Gerald Ford over Jimmy Carter. Last year it went to Clinton over Trump by something like an 85% to 15% margin. In the UK never mind Kensington, Labour also won seats like Battersea which are full of rich young professionals who are very Remain. I might add that Corbyn’s own riding of Islaington is a very very high income riding full of professionals and academics who at one time likely would have voted Tory.
It’s probably just a matter of time before this happens in Australia as the Liberals go the way of the GOP and the Tories the UK and Canada and make themselves totally unattractive to anyone with a post secondary education.
'young' 'youg' 'young'. Islington is also far from 'very very high income' 'Very very high income' areas in London voted tory.
Yeah, the most "very very high income" inner ridings of Chelsea & Fulham and Cities of London & Westminster remain Tory--though they swung Labour by 10 and 9 points respectively (and the latter became a marginal in the process)
It's probably in part a cultural thing re the *kinds* of ultra-high income (i.e. Rosedale vs the Annex in terms of Toronto); but also that even after the Liberals' recent provincial decimation, Toronto has an inherently far stronger "middle option", while the UK and Australia are more authentically binary. That is, regardless of leadership, the UK Tories and Australia Liberals still operate as free-enterprise-coalition default parties--maybe it would have been different in Britain if Cleggmania turned out like Macronmania; but such was not to be.
The better Canadian comparison would be Vancouver-Langara and Vancouver-Quilchena, within the more authentically binary provincial realm of British Columbia.
Poll
