Forum menu
So we’re back to ignoring folks whose opinions don’t agree with ours.
Oh they can express their opinion, they just won't be able to exercise it at the ballot box. 😀
Seriously though, the over-70s have had an entire lifetime of voting and other opportunities for engagement with the political system. If they haven't achieved the change they want to see before they're 70 then I doubt they have much more to offer after that. Politics is about the future, and time and again we see the older demographic looking to the past rather than seeking to move forward. Nothing will ever change if we allow the older generation to decide what's in our/their interests.
We already ban political parties that have opinions that we don't agree with.
Personally that's why I'd place a limit on wealth as the exclusion criteria rather than age, but I don't disgree that while the Venn diagram of hoarded wealth and age isn't going to be two exactly overlapping circles, it won't be far off
I don’t think PR makes for the sort of revolutionary changes that certainty Western Govts need to make.
Be careful what you wish for. Currently the revolutionary change required here will require a strong stomach and examples made of some people "pour encourager les autres".
As for not permitting the over 70's to vote, words fail me. Not all older people want whats best just for them. Some of our elders are wise enough to know that enlightened self interest is beneficial to them indirectly by making other parts of society more equitable all of society benefits.
Politics is about the future, and time and again we see the older demographic looking to the past rather than seeking to move forward.
Unfortunately todays 16-18 year olds also get old and, if politically active, will louse things up like my generation did for todays young folk.
Not all older people want whats best just for them.
Of course not, but they're in the minority. I would have absolutely no problem losing the vote at 70. In fact it might even motivate us to be more politically engaged when younger which would be a good thing. If there are other ways to address the 'grey vote' problem I'm all ears but I haven't heard many.
"putting more money into undoing the effects of a long period of Conservative austerity caused by them Replacing a Labour government"
What effect does endlessly increasing public spending have on an economy?
Doesn't look particularly austere really:
I think your analysis might have one or two flaws.
The main problem with UK politics is the two party stranglehold. Anything that allows new parties a chance is worth a try, which means something other than FPTP.
What effect does endlessly increasing public spending have on an economy?
Doesn’t look particularly austere really:
@rone to the thread please! 😂
Anything that allows new parties a chance is worth a try
Including fascists?
Including fascists?
Why shouldn't you have a party representing your anti-democratic views?
which means something other than FPTP.
I don't think the particular system of voting makes a huge amount of difference frankly. The point of the exercise is that you need a system that produces/encourages: Law-abiding stable govts that operate for the masses rather then narrow interests, and have a mandate that is supported by a majority of the citizenry. Whether that's PR or FPTP is largely IMO fiddling around the edges.
If the Green Party (for example) were actually interested in making change, then they'd have joined the Labour party years ago. Which is at least, a more pragmatic approach than endlessly complaining that the voting system puts you at a disadvantage.
Why shouldn’t you have a party representing your anti-democratic views?
Removing the vote from the over 70s would enhance democracy by removing the disproportionate power that demographic exercises. There's nothing democratic about allowing any specific cohort in our society to control policy in their own interests and that is exactly what is happening with the over 70s.
In addition to a PR type reform,
pay people to go to the polling booth.
Not a lot. £10?
Include a "none of you, just here for my tenner" option on the polling card.
Anyone not bothering to toddle down to the polling station (or have wherewithal and foresight to organise a postal vote) lacks either the mental capacity or the interest to have their say in the running of the country.
I think its hard to overestimate the detrimental effects to our society that capture of our political system by cooperate wealth or individual inherited wealth has had. The subtle change from discussion about policy development to a discussion about the financialization of policy development - i.e. the rights of wrongs or effects of policy decision making has been replaced with how much its going to cost (see @rone banging his head over there in the corner) has been very deliberately engineered by a part of our society that sees any spending other than to forward its own aims, as bad spending.
This, for me at least is the change we need to affect.
This, for me at least is the change we need to affect.
Nail on the head. Almost all political debate at the moment is about what we can afford and where the money is coming from, rather than what we need to do and how and when we do it. It's completely bonkers.
Why the hell are voters concerned about where govt money comes from or how much it can spend? All we should be asking ourselves is do we want a better health service, schools, infrastructure etc, and then it's up to the politicians and civil servants to figure out how do deliver that stuff without collapsing the economy.
So taxation without representation yeah?
If your wealth insulates you from policy decision about how to spend taxes, why should your voice be heard above those who will benefit from your taxes. When you receive your wages (or for example; I give money to beggars) you don't expect or would allow them (or me) to follow you around the supermarket commenting on how you spend it, would you?
Again, our political landscape has been captured by endless questions of "But how much is it going to cost?" with the unstated insinuation that unless it turns a profit (or can be made to turn a profit by a corporation) then it is bad. This has been the effect of the sustained propaganda of decades by a group who're determined that govt spending only flows to them, or that the little as possible that is diverted away from them can be profited by them
If you're drawing a state pension which I think most would agree is insufficient, you might take a part or full time job to up your income. Let's say Tesco or b and q for example, so your on minimum wage or suchlike. So your probably paying tax too. I don't think people in that situation, and there will be many, are shielded from policy decision by their wealth. Very much the opposite
I agree totally that the older vote has the power.... because they actually bother to do it, religiously. If you want policy that better reflects the 'young', they need to vote in the large number that they are. Currently they don't.
Iirc a certain chap did enthuse younger generations to participate, so it's possible. You just need to be making a good offer and put the effort in. I don't see anyone doing thst
I don’t think people in that situation, and there will be many, are shielded from policy decision by their wealth.
I don't either, which is why I said so. I disagree that age should be an exclusion criteria, I think it should be wealth. That they cross over is still a failure of politics though
If your wealth insulates you from policy decision about how to spend taxes, why should your voice be heard above those who will benefit from your taxes.
So we want to exclude the wealthy from voting, not just the elderly? Keep going. It's always amusing when the fascists start outing themselves.
The cost of an mp hotel makes it a non starter. A room in central London is around £300 a night, then you would have to add on costs of breakfast and dinner, say another £50 a night. Times 500 most (guessing the rest live locally enough to just commute), times 365 days a year is £64mm -127k per mp. Hotels make some money but do not make massive profits on these rooms.
The max an mp can claim on expenses is £25k for a flat for themselves in London. The hotel idea would cost £125k per mp.
Yep, I'd want to remove the influence of wealth as part of our political landscape, as I said, if your wealth insulates you from policy decision making, your voice shouldn't be the loudest.
I think you'll find that makes me a commie, rather than a fascist/capitalist running dog though. The fascists were/are totally in bed with big money
Anyone not bothering to toddle down to the polling station (or have wherewithal and foresight to organise a postal vote) lacks either the mental capacity or the interest to have their say in the running of the country
You can be interested yet still consider voting a complete waste of time on an individual level. I have a good level of interest in the politics of this country, but choose not to vote as my personal vote (which is all I can influence, not the actions of "but if everyone did that") will demonstratably make no difference at all
Removing the vote from the over 70s would enhance democracy by removing the disproportionate power that demographic exercises. There’s nothing democratic about allowing any specific cohort in our society to control policy in their own interests and that is exactly what is happening with the over 70s.
That's what the MP is supposed to do as our representative, currently we have populists in power (or Fascists if we're not being polite) who pander to large self-interested groups withoout addressing the whole picture. When we select the representatives carefully this will go away.
We don't become more democratic by removing the vote from sections of society. What next women, people of colour, Jews? You can see where that leads can't you?
Keep going.
Have to agree. Widen the vote... don't narrow it... and make votes count.
I used to have an MEP that I'd voted for, who would answer my concerns and stood for things that reflected what I voted for.
I have NEVER had a MP that I've voted for. In fact I've always had an MP from the party that least reflects what I vote for... and not just that.. in each case.... was one of the worst MPs in that party. Current one has blocked me on social media and emails aren't replied to. Who do I take things to? Who represents me?
A voting system where most voters do not have a representative that they voted for is an odd one. A voting system where a party has majority control on a minority vote is also an odd one. If you genuinely care about people having representation in parliament, and genuinely think that voters should choose who is in government, then our current system fails on both counts.
And the way to give young people agency in the voting process is to let them vote, and ensure their votes result in representation. So lower the age that people can vote... and don't simply throw away their vote because they happen to live in a constituency stuffed full of oldies.
I'm confused.
How does removing a group of the populations right to vote on any basis lead to a country becoming more democratic?
It doesn't. Some people want "revolution" even if that means reducing and enfeebling democracy itself.
Inclusion not exclusion, every single time
It's the only way
I think its hard to overestimate the detrimental effects to our society that capture of our political system by cooperate wealth or individual inherited wealth has had.
I disagree in that as far as I can tell our political system has always been controlled by corporate and personal wealth. You can go as far back in history as you can and its always been the same
and make votes count.
Towards what though? Both FPTP and RP will give you the same thing; broadly representative, broadly centrist non-extreme stable administrations. One will be able to do more of it's manifesto pledges than the other. That's it.
That's not what's killing our political environment.
You can go as far back in history as you can and its always been the same
The immediate post war period in this country is about as much as founding myth of "modern Britain" as you're likely to find. We swept away hundreds of years of traditional failure and half measures. Most of Europe did the same, and it was a period of almost unheard of prosperity and social revolution. Nearly everything that we 'enjoy' as a state provision comes from these 10-20 or so years. The last 30 or so have seen more and more of our discussion being hijacked by wealth; "trickle-down economics" anyone? (or alternatively "Yes I'd like the very wealthy to piss on me from on high, thanks") we're probs. overdue a review of that.
It's not oldies fault that the kids don't turn up to vote. Seem's perverse to punish them
Austrailia has an approach to address this...mandatory voting. If you don't vote, you get a fine, ditto for not being on the electoral register
It’s not oldies fault that the kids don’t turn up to vote. Seem’s perverse to punish them
But if a countries policies are heavily skewed towards the group that have all the wealth, where's the incentive for them (youngsters) to vote? That's what we've manged to achieve isn't it? This demographic blip that got handed the golden ticket post-war, and continue to hold onto it all (accidently in most cases) Because we can't really afford to knock the house prices down and we're not building any more (to keep the value of the stock we have artificially high) and we need to find a way to pay their pensions (which I don't begrudge BTW) but the population is falling, we've skewed our economy towards finance, and services, and the fear of all that (can't get a job, can't get on the housing ladder, immigration) caused many of the elderly to vote Brexit - the worse thing they could've done. The young are being failed, and as @dazh points out (uncomfortably it seems ) Politics is about the future.
Changing the way MP are voted to the big building in the middle of town isn't going to change any of that.
Closing Blair's devolved parliaments would be a quick fix, more layers of expensive big state bureaucracy, giving power to authoritarian nationalist socialist parties like the SNP was one of the biggest missteps of the last few decades
The thing with FPTP, in the UK, is that demographic spread is key. It's not just that our population is aging, it's also about where people live (and can afford to live). Basically, it favours older voters at the expense of younger voters. So dropping the voting age isn't the main thing that needs doing (but do it anyway)... what we need is proportional result based on votes... so that living in the wrong place doesn't mean your vote becomes a meaningless gesture. Young people are disenfranchised by the voting system... yet we expect them to go and cast their meaningless votes anyway for some reason... despite it not effecting the result in their seat. Make their votes count towards who gets to form a government and speak/vote in parliament and they'll vote.
At this next election, millions of young people will vote Green, knowing full well it'll make no difference to the number of green MPs (it'll likely be zero or one, and has nothing to do with their vote).
Millions more will vote Labour in city seats where the vote will be weighed... and their seat will return 1 Labour MP even if they and thousands of their friends go to the pub instead.
Make every vote count... and... every vote will count... so every vote feels more important.
Throw away the votes of millions of young people, and then chastise those that see exactly what is happening and choose not to get involved... well... why the surprise?
How does removing a group of the populations right to vote on any basis lead to a country becoming more democratic?
Because it redistributes power from groups who disproportionately wield it in their own interests (or who don't need it at all), to those who it doesn't serve and who do need it. A vote is completely meaningless if it doesn't provide the power to change society. Democracy isn't about giving people equal votes, it's about distributing executive power in a way where it will be exercised in the interests of the whole of society.
And the way to give young people agency in the voting process is to let them vote, and ensure their votes result in representation.
Or get rid of representation altogether and give young people a direct say in policy. We have the technology and people have shown many times they are willing to engage with the issues, so lets get rid of the middlemen who seem so prone to corrupting influences and conflicts of interests.
First past the post for MPs and then proportional representation for a reformed second house (Lords). Parties would be able to select members based on the proportion of vote. You would normally have a scenario where by a party could win a majority of MPs and form a government, but not have over 50% of the popular vote and not control the second house.
Or get rid of representation altogether and give young people a direct say in policy. We have the technology and people have shown many times they are willing to engage with the issues, so lets get rid of the middlemen who seem so prone to corrupting influences and conflicts of interests.
I have been saying this for years, since it became easily possible via internet/phone app.
Log on, see things you can have a say on and have say on them. Pure democracy. I would rather have a direct say that rely on my ****er of a tory MP who I have never voted for to speak on my behalf.
Waits for the cries of "People won't understand what they are voting for" but I would rather take someone who doesn't fully understand it over a tory MPs motives.
It's not a matter of "people don't understand" so much as people are guided by propaganda, misinformation and lies.
The ruling party can easily manipulate such votes, not just by media campaigns but by the actually voting process, give an option between the one they want you to vote for, one totally unacceptable choice and one that will make you worse off.
ie, say they gave 3 options to increase funding the NHS
1, Increase the basic rate of tax by 1% to be spent on the NHS
2, Save an equivalent amount of money from the current budget wasted, that could be spent on front line services
3, Completely overhaul the system and replace it with private insurance.
All the options are a bit shit really, don't address the problems and solutions to government spending, but the politicians can then absolve themselves from responsibility as "the people" made the choice.
It is just the same problems we already have with false choices, manipulation and will create more disenfranchisement, just played out more frequently.
I agree with @dazh I don’t see any govt that has PR in Europe doing so much better than the system the UK operates currently, that makes the change unquestionably better other than a personal belief that it would
We have had a succession if extreme racist right wing governments not seen in any other country. PR stops extremism
We have had a succession if extreme racist right wing governments not seen in any other country.
No we haven't. We've had right wing governments who have become increasingly hawkish on immigration. The extreme rightwing racists are in UKIP/reform/BNP etc and they have been denied power by FPTP. If we had PR then UKIP/Reform would have 50-100 MPs and probably would've been in coalition with the tories with Nigel Farage as home secretary. PR would have massively enabled the extremists in the UK rather than blocking them.
Poland had a rather extreme government till recently, as does Hungary and Italy. Slovakia has just elected a pro Putin populist.
This is not problem with just the UK, and PR is not an automatic fix, it can be part of the solution but it isn't the major issue.
We have had a succession if extreme racist right wing governments not seen in any other country. PR stops extremism
But isn't our dull old FPTP just about to put a stop to it? Plus; Hungry is RP, Poland is RP, Turkey is RP. It's not infallible
How come no ukip in scotland?
Probably because the nationalist are already in charge? Besides everyone knows UKIP is an English nationalist movement rather than anything to do with the UK. Ukip being popular in Scotland would be a bit like Le Pen standing candidates in English elections.