Banning old gits from voting

What a load of pony.

 

Immigrant hating crap all over it, what a ****ing snowflake.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Touch a nerve, Lord Crap?

Seems the OP's question is inadvertently answered by you and the other oddity. Some are enlightened by age; some corrupted by it.

If you take the vote away from the elderly, would you also take it from the terminally ill ?

Older people recognise that the young are having a tough time particularly with respect to housing, ..........and it is time for some of you to realise that the old are not your enemy.

Where is there any evidence whatsoever that older people recognise this, expressed through there voting for governments and their respective manifestos? The only thing governments can do is fiddle with the stuff that older people will vote for, like medaling with stamp duty, which then results in an immediate adjustment of the market, which guess what - raises property values?

Can they tax buy to let hard? Nope, landlords won’t vote for it.

Can they tax second homes? Nope, too close to the grey vote again.

Drop property as an investment by going after inheritance? Don’t think so.

Ramp up development by relaxing planning? Nope, those nimbys won’t be having that.

My oldest, studying in Reading, was living in a house with 10 other students last year. Reasonable size place, with every room converted to modest bedrooms, bar the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord was collecting £5k per month for that. Seriously, £5K per month for a very crappy detached house in Reading. That is how messed up our student accommodation and general housing policy have got.

And trust me, it is all in my vested interest, but at some point you have to say this is madness, if you are decent.

Fortunately, as the old timers nominated representative, you have reassured those young that you are all on their side, and by the way it’s time they jolly well woke up to it.

Weighing reduces the power of the single vote and would make the elderly second class citizens. It is still disenfranchisement of a large proportion of the population. Paxman is an idiot.

Is he an idiot making a very valid point about the current imbalance in our society between the young and old?

Where is there any evidence whatsoever that older people recognise this, expressed through there voting for governments and their respective manifestos? The only thing governments can do is fiddle with the stuff that older people will vote for, like medaling with stamp duty, which then results in an immediate adjustment of the market, which guess what - raises property values?

 

Can they tax buy to let hard? Nope, landlords won’t vote for it.

 

Can they tax second homes? Nope, too close to the grey vote again.

 

Drop property as an investment by going after inheritance? Don’t think so.

 

Ramp up development by relaxing planning? Nope, those nimbys won’t be having that.

 

My oldest, studying in Reading, was living in a house with 10 other students last year. Reasonable size place, with every room converted to modest bedrooms, bar the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord was collecting £5k per month for that. Seriously, £5K per month for a very crappy detached house in Reading. That is how messed up our student accommodation and general housing policy have got.

 

And trust me, it is all in my vested interest, but at some point you have to say this is madness, if you are decent.

 

Fortunately, as the old timers nominated representative, you have reassured those young that you are all on their side, and by the way it’s time they jolly well woke up to it.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Can I add those who regulalry watch any format of Big Brother on the not allowed to vote list?

I would also add those who actually go to the event and the bit on the side show to the not allowed to reproduce list!

I heard that 40% of eligable people aged between 18 and 24 didn't bother to vote in the Brexit referendum....after you have finished having a go at the "aged" will you be turning your attention to those whose futures we are supposed to be concerned about....? They obviously have no interest...

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

It is crap. In particular Russell Brand should be deeply ashamed of his stance from a few years ago, that young people should not vote. Everyone who has ever discussed this with me gets a very clear treatise on the importance of voting. People have died for that and you won’t catch me forgetting it.

Voting is as easy as it has ever been.

Just sit there, look on twitter and vote (by post) for/what ever putin tells you to.

Then rant on said Twitter when it does not go your way

Never been so easy

I don't see why older people should have any sort of weighting against them, as it's a vote on who runs the country for the next four years. So what you're basically saying is they wont live that long. There are plenty of old people much more capable of making an informed decision than many other members of society.

Should people with a criminal record be allowed to vote?

How about people with a low IQ?

People who are mentally ill? Autistic? Have suffered from concussion or other brain injuries?

I sincerely hope that the above comments are tongue in cheek? Just wait until you get old, chaps. The UK's problems are not being caused by old people, but stem directly from stagnation in wages, which is a direct result of the mass immigration of cheap labour. Low wages do not help to stimulate the economy (and create well paid jobs), and, furthermore, do not help increase fiscal revenues. Younger people are suffering more because they cannot afford housing, which has become prohibitively expensive due to demand exceeding supply. The NHS is on its knees because it has far too many customers caused by the large increase in population in the last 10 years. None of this has anything to do with the old folks who have paid handsomely into the system all their working lives. With respect to voting, older people are not as daft as you think, they have the benefit of long experience and have seen life. Quite honestly, I find the above comments to be very distasteful.

I agree that it's unhelpful to demonise older people, who have worked hard and followed the paths put before them by government policy. But a couple of points of fact:

1. The biggest single reason for growing demand on the NHS is people living longer and therefore spending more years in need of care. That comes before immigration, which I suspect you're alluding to. Old age has everything to do with population growth.

2. One of the main reasons housing demand exceeds supply is that older generations were allowed to buy their council houses. Some made enough money from sitting on a house in a valuable area that they could afford to buy a second and become landlords, making the problem even worse.

On the subject of the thread, it may seem useful now to give greater weight to young voters but the pendulum will swing the other way eventually. What happens if old people get screwed by policy in 40 years' time and their votes don't count enough to change it? More important is to persuade people of all ages to look beyond self-interest, or at least show how helping young people will help them in the end.

That’s a really good point. Future Governments can absolutely change the terms. And no, I wouldn’t trust any of them

 

Society needs to make a decision . We can either send 10% to uni with no fees or 50% with fees. I doubt we can put the genie back in the bottle as the industry is too big to change now. We can absolutely not afford to pay for 50% of the population to go to uni for free. What I find strange & incoherent is Corbyn wanting to make it free. Who does it help, the graduates that will pay off their loans. Which is in effect the very richest, the same richest he wants to tax more. Whether the left like it or not, fees are progressive. The more you earn, the more you pay back. If you’re poor, you don’t pay a penny back and it’s written off after 30 years. Its not really a loan, more of a higher tax rate , and should be renamed.

 

It’s too easy to compare free uni of our days (not that I went) with payment now, it’s a different beast now with so many more going.

If we sent the 10 per cent to uni they'd be the richest 10 per cent, speaking very generally, so I'm not sure that's any fairer to disadvantaged kids. As has been said, the priority should be providing avenues for people of all backgrounds and helping them get there, whether it's university, an apprenticeship or something else. I'm middle class and I'd have been looked down upon if I didn't go to university, but my trade shouldn't need a degree.

If you want to be serious, did you benefit from;

 

- Free further and higher education?

- Cheap houses and a steady rise in their value?

- Plentiful “real” jobs?

- A large publicly owned housing stock, that you could buy at a cut down rate if you were a tenant?

- Early retirement from nearly all public sector jobs, with pay offs?

- Final salary pension schemes, where, particularly in the public sector, a promotion got thrown in for the last year just to jack up the payout?

- Low taxation, subsidised by successive governments, of both colours, that sold off anything they could lay their hands on during the 70’s/80’s, and then borrowed a load more for our kids to pay off through the scams that are PFI and student loans?

- The “buy to let” boom?

Yep, most of that although never got as far as a full pension through terminal boredom and early departure, and indisposed to want to leverage through BTL. You forgot company share schemes too..

It's one of the reasons I don't have a problem with inheritance tax, as that seems one of the fairer ways to finance the public services we want without impacting current lives. Cue squawks about hard earned cash, etc, but read Colehillsaint's post again. The really rich don't pay it anyway, and they tend to be really rich because ancestors were mates of William the Conqueror and have clung onto their land, or even increased it by stealing common land through the enclosures.

As for immigration.. billhooks. The NHS is under pressure due to spending a lower percentage than other OECD countries with an ageing population, housing because we don't build enough, and wages are lower because the percentage of GDP that goes to wages has gone down in proportion to that going to capital and property.

This must be the first thread ever where I agree with CB Fry and don't think he is being an aggravating irritant, and I only wish his normal posts on football were more like it.

I don't see why older people should have any sort of weighting against them, as it's a vote on who runs the country for the next four years. So what you're basically saying is they wont live that long. There are plenty of old people much more capable of making an informed decision than many other members of society.

 

Should people with a criminal record be allowed to vote?

How about people with a low IQ?

People who are mentally ill? Autistic? Have suffered from concussion or other brain injuries?

I guess this would help Labour to win the elections, is Paxman on their side?

So, besides natives versus immigrants, black versus white, muslims versus non muslims we now have old versus young. So much for solidarity in the society...

I guess this would help Labour to win the elections, is Paxman on their side?

So, besides natives versus immigrants, black versus white, muslims versus non muslims we now have old versus young. So much for solidarity in the society...

Good point, it is very divisive. Paxman is, to some extent, guilty of attention seeking - he has the ego the size of a house - but I suspect his comments are rooted in the result of the Brexit referendum, which, whether you like it or not, was a truly democratic vote. Hence he makes the suggestion to reduce the influence of the 'grey' vote. Sure, the ageing population has had an effect on housing and the NHS, but to say mass immigration has had no effect is simply wrong. The population at the time of the Maastricht Treaty was 57.58M, it is now 66.57M, i.e. an increase of nearly 16% in 25 years only. All this in a very small island, which is one of, if not the most, densely populated countries in Europe. The land mass here in Finland is 1.50 times the UK with a population of only 5 million, and despite higher wage costs than the UK, houses are probably, on average, less than half the cost of the UK. Personally, I would ban the purchasing of second homes in the UK to try and solve the problem of shortage of supply, but will voters be prepared to accept it (young and old)? I visited the UK a couple of years back and stayed in a place called Upper Slaughter in the Cotswolds. A once thriving village, it is now a weekend retreat for rich people from London. I was shocked how local people had been economically cleansed from their own area.

Pretty stupid suggestion by Paxman to be fair!

What he seems to have forgotten is that 'young' voters will eventually become 'old' voters. The phrase 'turkeys voting for Christmas' springs to mind

Pretty stupid suggestion by Paxman to be fair!

 

What he seems to have forgotten is that 'young' voters will eventually become 'old' voters. The phrase 'turkeys voting for Christmas' springs to mind

He also seems to be unaware that the pensioners he rubs shoulders with aren't entirely representative of pensioners as a group. He bleats about them owning homes and having money to burn while the youngsters struggle to pay for the oldies lifestyles, but most pensioners I know are living in care homes funded by the sale of their houses, and have the square root of f*ck all left in savings. These are the same people who "had all the breaks" according to some on here, those breaks including living through a war and the financial aftermath of it.

Good point, it is very divisive. Paxman is, to some extent, guilty of attention seeking - he has the ego the size of a house - but I suspect his comments are rooted in the result of the Brexit referendum, which, whether you like it or not, was a truly democratic vote. Hence he makes the suggestion to reduce the influence of the 'grey' vote. Sure, the ageing population has had an effect on housing and the NHS, but to say mass immigration has had no effect is simply wrong. The population at the time of the Maastricht Treaty was 57.58M, it is now 66.57M, i.e. an increase of nearly 16% in 25 years only. All this in a very small island, which is one of, if not the most, densely populated countries in Europe. The land mass here in Finland is 1.50 times the UK with a population of only 5 million, and despite higher wage costs than the UK, houses are probably, on average, less than half the cost of the UK. Personally, I would ban the purchasing of second homes in the UK to try and solve the problem of shortage of supply, but will voters be prepared to accept it (young and old)? I visited the UK a couple of years back and stayed in a place called Upper Slaughter in the Cotswolds. A once thriving village, it is now a weekend retreat for rich people from London. I was shocked how local people had been economically cleansed from their own area.

The Netherlands is the most densely populated country in Europe (besides Vatican City that is... ) and the population has grown since 1992 with more than 13%. Mass immigration will have some effect on the rising cost of healthcare and housing (prices are skyrocketing at this moment) but imo it's negligible compared to the ageing of the population (already 18% of the population is 65 or older) and the fact that we stopped building new houses due to the recession of the last years. In fact we need immigration of young people to keep things going in the next decades. Of course those immigrants should be able to adjust rapidly to our knowledge economy but that's another discussion. I reckon the situation in the UK isn't that much different from the Netherlands.

Older people are a demographic. when they die, they are replaced by new older people. They are a part of society and deserve representation. When the next generation hits 65, their needs may be different, they may vote differently, but they must have a right to do so. People who blame older voters, e.g. for brexit, seem to view them as another species, but perhaps they have different experiences and different outlooks that are of equal value to those of young liberals in the university sphere.

Also - it's just not right to remove the right to vote of someone because you disagree with their views. younger people in their 20's tend to be pursue ideologies and also follow more liberal tendencies, pursue social justice and the left, but in my experience, as you mature you recognise that fighting for equality is not about everyone being the same, but about everyone having a voice and equal opportunity. regardless of gender, race or age.

having said that, i'd raise the voting age to 40. that's when life begins after all.

Yeah, I must admit I see the whole 'student debt' issue as a massive myth really, and I went to uni and am profiting off of the job that I was able to acquire due to my Electrical Engineering Degree.

 

It is basically the most favourable debt of more or less any kind I can think of off of the top of my head.

 

The alternative is a he proportion of public funds swallowed up effectively paying for the younger generation to effectively toss it off at Uni, and having been there I do mean that in avery sense of the word. For every 1 or 2 people I know that studied hard and are now paying back society with their higher education I know of atleast 4 or 5 that achieved absolutely nothing out of university at all. I do believe the whole system needs to be changed however, we should probably propose a certain amount of 'free' spaces for students with an aptitude to take them on within the sectors that have been identified as requiring re-staffing. For instance, if we need X amount of engineers or doctors then the government proposes X2 free spaces. The rest of the courses should remain as paid entry like it currently is. I think the problem is too many now see university as a right of passage, instead of what it is there for. And lets face it, the debt doesn't matter if you are improving your ability to create wealth for yourself in the form of higher wages.

 

As for the NHS, I think the whole thing needs a reform, but I think issues such as the NHS, education etc are stifled by the way we elect our governments. The reality from what I can see is that the NHS needs refunding, or in essence proper funding through increase in taxes. This unfortunately is a topic no party that wishes to remain in power will be looking to put forward in their manifesto unless is it absolutely necessary. So why can't we take pressing issues such as this off of the table ? Agree party wide that there will be a system that runs in a certain way, with a certain budget and taxed appropriately ? And then allow the parties to chastise each other over the other subjects that are less pressing to the needs of the masses ?

How much did you pay though? I'm assuming you didn't go when it was 9 grand a year. I don't have an objection to having paid for my uni degree, but the fact is 9 grand a year was an utter **** take. A complete rip off, packed in to lecture halls, and never with weekly contact hours of reaching double figures. Don't expect a free lunch, but I at least expect the govt to help encourage good value for money, when it's done the opposite.

If you want to be serious, did you benefit from;

 

- Free further and higher education?

- Cheap houses and a steady rise in their value?

- Plentiful “real” jobs?

- A large publicly owned housing stock, that you could buy at a cut down rate if you were a tenant?

- Early retirement from nearly all public sector jobs, with pay offs?

- Final salary pension schemes, where, particularly in the public sector, a promotion got thrown in for the last year just to jack up the payout?

- Low taxation, subsidised by successive governments, of both colours, that sold off anything they could lay their hands on during the 70’s/80’s, and then borrowed a load more for our kids to pay off through the scams that are PFI and student loans?

- The “buy to let” boom?

 

Are you grateful?

 

Is it fair that the legacy for the generation below 30 is massive student debt, now with 6.1% interest, and deregulation of the employment market through the gig economy?

The answer to all those (apart from education) is a big fat NO.

The answer to all those (apart from education) is a big fat NO.

The delusion and lack of self-awareness is strong with this one.

Plenty of people are in the middle of a lifetime of hard work and paying taxes but won't get the advantages your generation got.

 

Remember it ain't your taxes from the past paying for any pension and healthcare you recieve from the state. It's mine and the snivelling little brats working and paying in now.

 

The idea that the state has miraculously squirrelled away your taxes from decades ago to be preserved for your benefit in 2018 is laughable. The government runs a deficit ran up by previous generations. It's not your post office book matey.

 

Personally I'd rather my taxes weren't propping you up but I participate in society so will always do my bit.

 

So remember that and try and be grateful for once in your life you miserable moaning ungrateful old cu nt.

None of your taxes are propping me up, I pay enough taxes on my own and I can never retire. Besides, I paid extra for what little state pension I get whereas you lot will get it even without contributing.

My father paid extra to his employer despite his kids having to go without holidays so that my mother could get a very modest increase on his pension when he died. She is now 98 and still paying taxes.

Who built and paid for that motorway that you drive on? The M27 was finished in 1983 so perhaps nobody under the age of 55 should be allowed to use it?

Who built the schools and paid for the teachers that supported you for the first quarter of your life?

Who built the hospitals and surgeries that you now use?

The previous generations built and created the present society that you now benefit from. One day, if you're lucky, you might get old. Then come back and tell me how easy it all was. I know plenty of close relatives and colleagues who didn't even make it to requirement.

Ungrateful load of brats. You all think you're entitled to everything at once. Here's an idea: try working for what you want and going without if you can't afford. it

Who built and paid for that motorway that you drive on? The M27 was finished in 1983 so perhaps nobody under the age of 55 should be allowed to use it?

 

Who built the schools and paid for the teachers that supported you for the first quarter of your life?

 

Who built the hospitals and surgeries that you now use?

Given the state of the economy in 1983 it's likely that motorway building, like most public works, were funded at least substantially by government bonds - that is, debt that will be repaid by this and future generations.

Schools and hospitals have been extensively been funded by another way in which governments in the UK have massaged borrowing - PFI, an exhorbitantly expensive mechanism that, like bonds, pushes the debts down the road to future generations.

You may be an exception, but the vast majority of your generation has accumulated vast wealth in pensions and property - the kinds of income and asset wealth that 20-45 year olds will never come close to achieving.

Given the state of the economy in 1983 it's likely that motorway building, like most public works, were funded at least substantially by government bonds - that is, debt that will be repaid by this and future generations.

 

Schools and hospitals have been extensively been funded by another way in which governments in the UK have massaged borrowing - PFI, an exhorbitantly expensive mechanism that, like bonds, pushes the debts down the road to future generations.

 

You may be an exception, but the vast majority of your generation has accumulated vast wealth in pensions and property - the kinds of income and asset wealth that 20-45 year olds will never come close to achieving.

Oh dear God.....you actually believe this??

The answer to all those (apart from education) is a big fat NO.

You have my sympathy. IMHO, yours is a generation where some have worked the property market, the career ladder, and the system generally, to great effect. East Dorset is full of them. Those that haven’t, for whatever reason, have actually ended up with quite a ****ty deal.

Oh dear God.....you actually believe this??

I’m being driven back from a meeting in Kent, so have a little time to devote to pointless debate. My curiosity leads me to ask; which paragraph do you particularly take issue with?

The Netherlands is the most densely populated country in Europe (besides Vatican City that is... ) and the population has grown since 1992 with more than 13%. Mass immigration will have some effect on the rising cost of healthcare and housing (prices are skyrocketing at this moment) but imo it's negligible compared to the ageing of the population (already 18% of the population is 65 or older) and the fact that we stopped building new houses due to the recession of the last years. In fact we need immigration of young people to keep things going in the next decades. Of course those immigrants should be able to adjust rapidly to our knowledge economy but that's another discussion. I reckon the situation in the UK isn't that much different from the Netherlands.

And besides Monaco.

And besides Monaco.

And Gibraltar and Malta.

I’m being driven back from a meeting in Kent, so have a little time to devote to pointless debate. My curiosity leads me to ask; which paragraph do you particularly take issue with?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

The highlighted one...

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Hasn’t highlighted on my phone screen.

Hasn’t highlighted on my phone screen.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

but the vast majority of your generation has accumulated vast wealth in pensions and property -

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Vast majority I suppose could be questioned. “Vast” wealth, in terms of the individual, is a stretch too, I guess. Taking the general sentiment though, it is pretty difficult to argue that a lot of people haven’t become very affluent. I won’t bore you with lots of personal examples, but I could.

..... a lot of people haven’t become very affluent.

This is a part of your posting I can agree with.

Honestly, I get the joke, and that’s fine, but places like Wimborne and Purbeck, where I live and work, are awash with older people that have migrated from London and the Home Counties, sometimes funded by generous occupational pensions, and always with big property windfalls, from moving out to the sticks. It isn’t just here. Where my father and two of my siblings now live, in the Scottish Borders, they are surrounded by retired teachers and similar, with health and lifestyles that their ancestors could never have aspired to. In itself that is good news, as we will all be old one day, but they push out young families by making housing unaffordable, and seek to shut down anything remotely noisy, smelly or dusty, damaging local employment. They also campaign against any housing development, exacerbating the local populations problems.

Honestly, I get the joke, and that’s fine, but places like Wimborne and Purbeck, where I live and work, are awash with older people that have migrated from London and the Home Counties, sometimes funded by generous occupational pensions, and always with big property windfalls, from moving out to the sticks. It isn’t just here. Where my father and two of my siblings now live, in the Scottish Borders, they are surrounded by retired teachers and similar, with health and lifestyles that their ancestors could never have aspired to. In itself that is good news, as we will all be old one day, but they push out young families by making housing unaffordable, and seek to shut down anything remotely noisy, smelly or dusty, damaging local employment. They also campaign against any housing development, exacerbating the local populations problems.

I don't disagree that there are areas where people have cashed in on the house price bubble, and have subsequently distorted the local economies of 'desirable' locations. But to generalise that entire generations are involved is a gross distortion. ( And, btw, my wife is retired teacher, and the only people who will benefit from the increased value of our house will be our children once we are dead and gone ).

I don't disagree that there are areas where people have cashed in on the house price bubble, and have subsequently distorted the local economies of 'desirable' locations. But to generalise that entire generations are involved is a gross distortion. ( And, btw, my wife is retired teacher, and the only people who will benefit from the increased value of our house will be our children once we are dead and gone ).

My point and many others on this thread are good ones. Entire is not a word I have or would have used. In fact, if I was in my late 60s and had missed out on property, had my pension fund raided by unscrupulous directors, and was now making ends meet with a nightshift in the local Texaco, I would be pretty ****ed off as well.

For the record I have absolutely nothing in particular against retired teachers.

Honestly, I get the joke, and that’s fine, but places like Wimborne and Purbeck, where I live and work, are awash with older people that have migrated from London and the Home Counties, sometimes funded by generous occupational pensions, and always with big property windfalls, from moving out to the sticks. It isn’t just here. Where my father and two of my siblings now live, in the Scottish Borders, they are surrounded by retired teachers and similar, with health and lifestyles that their ancestors could never have aspired to. In itself that is good news, as we will all be old one day, but they push out young families by making housing unaffordable, and seek to shut down anything remotely noisy, smelly or dusty, damaging local employment. They also campaign against any housing development, exacerbating the local populations problems.

My brother in law sold up in Weybridge, brought a nice house in Poole and retired on his final salary pension. Is it his fault that I haven’t got my final salary pension anymore, no it’s Gordon ****ing Brown’s. Is it his fault that the price of property in London and surrounding areas is so high, that he’s made a killing, no. What on earth has he done wrong to be denied the vote or criticised by snowflakes. All his done is work hard all his life, move to the coast and retired. By the way, he left school with **** all, moved to London with nothing, he had no more opportunities than anyone else. My youngest son is now 18, there is absolutely nothing his uncle did 40 years ago, that he couldn’t do today. If he works as hard and is as successful in his chosen career, he’ll be able to enjoy a decent retirement in a nice house.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And Gibraltar and Malta.

Yup, and San Marino, Guernsey and Jersey.

My brother in law sold up in Weybridge, brought a nice house in Poole and retired on his final salary pension. Is it his fault that I haven’t got my final salary pension anymore, no it’s Gordon ****ing Brown’s. Is it his fault that the price of property in London and surrounding areas is so high, that he’s made a killing, no. What on earth has he done wrong to be denied the vote or criticised by snowflakes. All his done is work hard all his life, move to the coast and retired. By the way, he left school with **** all, moved to London with nothing, he had no more opportunities than anyone else. My youngest son is now 18, there is absolutely nothing his uncle did 40 years ago, that he couldn’t do today. If he works as hard and is as successful in his chosen career, he’ll be able to enjoy a decent retirement in a nice house.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I would never, ever, ever, actually advocate taking the vote from the old, or any other demographic. I’m going to hope that next time you converse with said brother in law, you cast your enquiring mind as to whether he appreciates the breaks he got, and whether the best interests of his nephew are at the forefront of his mind as he enters the polling booth. I’m going to stop beating my head against a brick wall on here, and return to working energetically, like any 53 year old should, against the forces waged against my business. If things go well, I won’t particularly need any of the accumulated fortune that will drop into my lap when my, industrious, but self confessed very lucky, father dies, within the next ten or fifteen years.

The Netherlands is the most densely populated country in Europe (besides Vatican City that is... ) and the population has grown since 1992 with more than 13%. Mass immigration will have some effect on the rising cost of healthcare and housing (prices are skyrocketing at this moment) but imo it's negligible compared to the ageing of the population (already 18% of the population is 65 or older) and the fact that we stopped building new houses due to the recession of the last years. In fact we need immigration of young people to keep things going in the next decades. Of course those immigrants should be able to adjust rapidly to our knowledge economy but that's another discussion. I reckon the situation in the UK isn't that much different from the Netherlands.

Tbf, I did start by saying the UK as a whole is one of the most densely populated countries which is true. It would be nice to know how England alone compares to the Netherlands. Check out the growth in population in the 25 years between 1967 and Maastricht in 1992, which is negligible, and then compare the growth between 1992 and 2017. This huge rate of increase cannot solely be down to people living longer, although for sure that is one factor. The government needs to come up with a different housing policy because many people now live alone, small properties are being snapped up by investors, and the pace of private development cannot keep up with demand. Hence the extortionate cost of housing and why the young are finding it difficult to get on the ladder.

I would never, ever, ever, actually advocate taking the vote from the old, or any other demographic.

And yet your very first post in this thread exclaimed that Paxman was "spot on"!

Please explain how reducing the vote of someone over 70 to one third the value of someone else is not 'advocating taking the vote from the old"?

Anything that does away with the "one person, one vote" system that we currently have is surely taking something away from someone?

My brother in law sold up in Weybridge, brought a nice house in Poole and retired on his final salary pension. Is it his fault that I haven’t got my final salary pension anymore, no it’s Gordon ****ing Brown’s. Is it his fault that the price of property in London and surrounding areas is so high, that he’s made a killing, no. What on earth has he done wrong to be denied the vote or criticised by snowflakes. All his done is work hard all his life, move to the coast and retired. By the way, he left school with **** all, moved to London with nothing, he had no more opportunities than anyone else. My youngest son is now 18, there is absolutely nothing his uncle did 40 years ago, that he couldn’t do today. If he works as hard and is as successful in his chosen career, he’ll be able to enjoy a decent retirement in a nice house.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Unless he’s going to enjoy some form of inheritance, sweet dreams with that one.

I find it rather strange that many youngsters think all old people had free university education, were employed in lucrative jobs, own 2nd homes, and have final salary pension schemes. My parents, who are in their 80’s, have benefited from none of the above and I suspect the majority may be in a similar situation. I am of the next generation, left school in 1980, and only one of mates went to university. The big difference between then and now is that it was easier to get on the housing ladder, although there were risks with very high interest rates - many people lost their houses in 89/90. Blame the various consecutive governments for their short-sighted housing policies, not pensioners.

Drop property as an investment by going after inheritance? Don’t think so.

To be fair, inheritance tax hurts the young more than the old

Harsh!

I wonder if Paxman would have the same view if he worked all his life as a clerical grade office worker? You cant champion democracy on one hand and then say it only applies to some on the other. F*** me, we have only just finished celebrating 100 years since the Suffragettes. Now it is suggested OAPs should be disenfranchised? If we want a better world and are going to do that by taking votes away from people, perhaps we should start with Tory voters and those who voted for Brexit?

I find it rather strange that many youngsters think all old people had free university education, were employed in lucrative jobs, own 2nd homes, and have final salary pension schemes. My parents, who are in their 80’s, have benefited from none of the above and I suspect the majority may be in a similar situation. I am of the next generation, left school in 1980, and only one of mates went to university. The big difference between then and now is that it was easier to get on the housing ladder, although there were risks with very high interest rates - many people lost their houses in 89/90. Blame the various consecutive governments for their short-sighted housing policies, not pensioners.

I am one year away from being an OAP, so a few years younger than Paxman. When I was 18 you only went to University if you were the brightest of the bunch. None of my peers went to Uni. Both my parents worked and we lived in comfortable but modest homes but no second home. We only had two holidays away from these shores when I was a kid and one of those was to Jersey. A lot of the equity in my mothers house went on her care in a home in her final years. Up until the age of 12 I had no idea what central heating was. Houses were not cheap in relation to earnings.Each generation has it own cross to bear.

I am one year away from being an OAP, so a few years younger than Paxman. When I was 18 you only went to University if you were the brightest of the bunch. None of my peers went to Uni. Both my parents worked and we lived in comfortable but modest homes but no second home. We only had two holidays away from these shores when I was a kid and one of those was to Jersey. A lot of the equity in my mothers house went on her care in a home in her final years. Up until the age of 12 I had no idea what central heating was. Houses were not cheap in relation to earnings.Each generation has it own cross to bear.

The 60’s and 70’s were far from easy, I agree, and the reminder of having no heating in the house still makes me shudder. My old man installed central heating himself in 1983, borrowed a book from Hythe library on how to do it. Imagine that now? I think this myth about pensioners having it so good in their early years is being perpetuated by social media, and even my own kids here in Finland think I am telling stories when I tell them I lived in a caravan until 5. It’s ancient history for them, and history can be distorted. I am 9 years off retirement and me and my mates grew up in Hythe with naff all, and what really upsets me about Paxman’s comments - apart from the obvious proposed disenfranchisement of a whole generation - is that some of us made good, not through everything being laid on a plate, but through hard graft and taking risks. One was in bomb disposal and is now a top security adviser on land mines to the UN, another rose from being an HVAC engineer to Leader of Bournemouth

Council at one time. At 18 they only possessed the donkey jacket an jeans they stood up in. Having said that, the current housing policy - and methods of construction - are putting the cost of housing out of many young people’s reach.

And yet your very first post in this thread exclaimed that Paxman was "spot on"!

 

Please explain how reducing the vote of someone over 70 to one third the value of someone else is not 'advocating taking the vote from the old"?

 

Anything that does away with the "one person, one vote" system that we currently have is surely taking something away from someone?

I don’t know why I looked because I’ve got much better things to do.

Again, to clarify; I think he is spot on in his assessment of the issues.

On taking away or applying factors to votes, I think he is being controversial to raise debate, and does not in fact really mean it. That has pretty much always been his style. I certainly wouldn’t agree if I thought he was being serious about any modification of one person, one vote.

My brother in law sold up in Weybridge, brought a nice house in Poole and retired on his final salary pension. Is it his fault that I haven’t got my final salary pension anymore, no it’s Gordon ****ing Brown’s. Is it his fault that the price of property in London and surrounding areas is so high, that he’s made a killing, no. What on earth has he done wrong to be denied the vote or criticised by snowflakes. All his done is work hard all his life, move to the coast and retired. By the way, he left school with **** all, moved to London with nothing, he had no more opportunities than anyone else. My youngest son is now 18, there is absolutely nothing his uncle did 40 years ago, that he couldn’t do today. If he works as hard and is as successful in his chosen career, he’ll be able to enjoy a decent retirement in a nice house.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Agree 100% with this.

It seems that people want to make excuses for kids nowadays, but if they work hard and make the correct decisions they'll be just fine.

the current housing policy - and methods of construction - are putting the cost of housing out of many young people’s reach.

Its a simple numbers game. We dont build enough houses to keep up with two factors:

1. population growth (and more than half of population growth is not immigration driven)

2. Households are getting smaller - there a fewer people per home.

The major cost of new houses is not building them but the cost of land. Typically two thirds of the cost of a new house will be the land and one third the actual building. We need around 3 million new homes by building upwards and by compulsory purchase of farmland at farm land prices, not building land prices.

To be fair, inheritance tax hurts the young more than the old

Just need to plan ahead with the 7 year rule...