Tories and policy!

[Craiglxviii]

It'd be interesting to see how many Sociology or Literal Arts degrees were included in that survey!

 

[Craiglxviii]

I think you have to bear in mind that most young people are politically and economically illiterate, there is little or no effort made to educate them about how society works probably due to fear of political brainwashing depending on whom you are being taught by (teachers in general are thought to lean to the left).

I do agree with Craig's comments about extended adolescence especially nowadays as maturity comes with responsibility and the 'stay at home generation' are stuck in an adolescent time warp

The thing is, the "18yo = adulthood" thing is a late phenomenon. Look at all cultures around the world up until the late 19th century and you'll see that men were not considered to be men until some time past their 21st birthday. That is, when they were judged to be safe to be allowed to work expensive assets (oxen, ploughs, mills etc) alone and unsupervised, or otherwise behave in a way not likely to kill or maim themselves & others and not destroy property. Hence the apprentice/ journeyman/ tradesman sequence.

Now, human physiology and development hasn't changed (much) in 500 years but society has. So how can we assign to children (18yo) in mediaeval times the right to effect societal change, and reasonably not expect them to make I'll considered judgements?

Like I said, the car insurance industry gives us a disinterested and empirical study of exactly this issue. Look at insurance rates from 18 to 26years of age, by year. That curve pretty much plots risk: benefit ability by age.

 

[Frontstep]

Sweeping generalisations just as the Insurance Industry makes, hide a very disparate reality which continues through out life.
My own youth and his friends all well educated and University bound contain a complicated mix of personalities.
My peer group from extraordinarily high achievers to ordinary tradesmen and women some to this day don't deserve the vote.

But the important point is even the lowest in society deserve a voice even if its one I don't agree with.

I know quite a few older people who put more thought into choosing their socks than political representatives.

How often do you hear the lazy minded mantras "their all the same"," in it for what they can get" etc.

The latest nonsense that nobody could actually abide by democratic decisions if they disagreed with them.

How do they think the Judiciary works ? The medical profession who treat the good and the bad ?

Democracy has a lot of faults as all systems but the young and the thick deserve to be heard.

 

[Craiglxviii]

The point is, if it is medically demonstrable that a person or people below a certain age cannot make a qualified risk: benefit analysis then why should they be allowed a say in the future of their country? They are unable at that point to judge what is in their long term best interests because the parts of their brains that allow that judgement to be made have not yet fully developed.

This is nothing to do with being a thicko- and there's a lot to be said for a minimum IQ level, or some form of comprehension test in voting conditions too. If someone is not intelligent enough to understand the ramifications of their actions as they impact the greater population then why should they be allowed to affect the direction of the country?

The point here being, voting is a privilege and not a right. It was earnt originally. Now it is considered somewhat differently and look at the ramifications of that.

None of that affects the stratum of society that any one person exists in. Simply their ability to make reasoned decisions based on a general understanding of the situation.

 

[davemercedes]

You really do see the world differently to the rest of us!

The election result was an unmitigated failure for Mrs May who went to the polls to increase her majority and came away with a minority government. You could even say she single handedly lost her majority by going after the conservative core support of the elderly. What a disaster the dementia tax was (which by all accounts was added by her without consultation with the party).

Corbyn (who was at one point 20 points behind in the polls) did very well for himself in spite of the best attempts of Diane Abbot to scuttle his chances.

Brexit will almost certainly not be Brexit (as Mrs May had previously claimed) but a more watered down version as she no longer has the ability to do the no deal is better than a bad deal she has been espousing for so long. Her hand has been seriously weakened within the UK and she will almost certainly have to take a more moderate line than she may otherwise have wanted if she expects backing from parliament.

No. The election was most definitely not a success for the Tories. They were lucky to stay in power.
This sums it up nicely.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...vid-camerons-playbook-and-paid-terrible-price

Yes, it was a complete and utter failure. In the last couple of days David Davis has said on TV that he persuaded Mrs Mayhem to call the General Election - which he now says was bad judgment - so much for his 30 years experience, then.
- But now we have to trust his judgment negotiating with the EU though?

Meanwhile he is still proclaiming that Brexit will be "just the same" while others, especially Hammond are proposing a different timetable and approach - over a year since the referendum. I said all along that I was really worried that "they" don't know what they're doing. The whole thing seems to be a shambles.

 

[Frosty149]

The point is, if it is medically demonstrable that a person or people below a certain age cannot make a qualified risk: benefit analysis then why should they be allowed a say in the future of their country? They are unable at that point to judge what is in their long term best interests because the parts of their brains that allow that judgement to be made have not yet fully developed.

This is nothing to do with being a thicko- and there's a lot to be said for a minimum IQ level, or some form of comprehension test in voting conditions too. If someone is not intelligent enough to understand the ramifications of their actions as they impact the greater population then why should they be allowed to affect the direction of the country?

The point here being, voting is a privilege and not a right. It was earnt originally. Now it is considered somewhat differently and look at the ramifications of that.

None of that affects the stratum of society that any one person exists in. Simply their ability to make reasoned decisions based on a general understanding of the situation.

This harks back to a question raised about competence to vote, most people have very limited education in politics and govt or modern economics, irrespective of age or gender etc.
We are at the mercy of political campaigning, inherited views and personality contests IMO.
This hasn't and is unlikely to change anytime soon.
There is no solution without disenfranchising sections of the population for whom, historically, the vote was hard fought!
It is simply one of the down sides of modern democracy with no saleable answer.

 

[Craiglxviii]

What it demonstrates is that- as the charts LK posted show quite clearly- highly educated young people cannot make a valid risk: benefit analysis with regard to their own future.

"Vote for me and get free money! But I'll put the country £45 billion further in debt to do it! FREE MONEY!!!"

So he got the votes. (Regardless of the shoite Tory campaign). Regardless of the future in front of that section of the electorate who voted for £25k NOW and then another two decades of stalled interest rates and cutbacks to the public services that would eventually occur.

In this case education and the ability to make quality judgements are not linked- because the physiological development needed for those judgements has not yet happened.

 

[LostKiwi]

But Craig, we have seen from the governments own statistics and records that Labour (historically) pays back more of the national debt than the Conservatives!

 

[JBell]

What it demonstrates is that- as the charts LK posted show quite clearly- highly educated young people cannot make a valid risk: benefit analysis with regard to their own future.

"Vote for me and get free money! But I'll put the country £45 billion further in debt to do it! FREE MONEY!!

Just goes back to this

 

[Craiglxviii]

But Craig, we have seen from the governments own statistics and records that Labour (historically) pays back more of the national debt than the Conservatives!

I should really do some analysis of this...

 

[JBell]

I should really do some analysis of this...

Historically Labour do BUT:

They historically borrow more so have more to pay back
They historically raise Taxes (140+ stealth tax rises under Brown)
Historically run a greater deficit

 

[JBell]

"Vote for me and get free money! But I'll put the country £45 billion further in debt to do it! FREE MONEY!!!"

I was on a train last weekend and listened to a conversation between a group of youfs, all they talked about was what they would get and how it would make their lives easier because JC was going to tax the rich and give it out to make everyone elses lives easier.

This is Entitlement and people thinking they have a right to free stuff because someone else has had it take off them.

Possibly the best tweet ever:

"I am not surprised Corbyn is a hit at Glastonbury, if you like being ripped off and living in a tent surrounded by **** you'll love socialism"

 

[Big Cheese]

Yes, it was a complete and utter failure. In the last couple of days David Davis has said on TV that he persuaded Mrs Mayhem to call the General Election - which he now says was bad judgment - so much for his 30 years experience, then.
- But now we have to trust his judgment negotiating with the EU though?

Meanwhile he is still proclaiming that Brexit will be "just the same" while others, especially Hammond are proposing a different timetable and approach - over a year since the referendum. I said all along that I was really worried that "they" don't know what they're doing. The whole thing seems to be a shambles.

Maybe the man who should be doing the negotiations with Brussels is the man who forced the goverments hand in the first place.
I doubt Farage would make a dog's dinner of it!

 

[davemercedes]

What it demonstrates is that- as the charts LK posted show quite clearly- highly educated young people cannot make a valid risk: benefit analysis with regard to their own future.

"Vote for me and get free money! But I'll put the country £45 billion further in debt to do it! FREE MONEY!!!"

So he got the votes. (Regardless of the shoite Tory campaign). Regardless of the future in front of that section of the electorate who voted for £25k NOW and then another two decades of stalled interest rates and cutbacks to the public services that would eventually occur.

In this case education and the ability to make quality judgements are not linked- because the physiological development needed for those judgements has not yet happened.

If you think about it properly: What experience does the average 18-22 year old have that is relevant to voting?

Well, they've all seen their older generation being paid pretty poorly - at least their income has been held back as prices haven't.
They know the history of the financial crash and the way Joe Public has had to pay to correct it with the chancellor of the day telling everyone "we're all in this together" which we obviously were not, while the odd billionaire separated 11,000 people from their pension benefits by blatantly flogging off the company for a quid... (and got a knighthood along the way). They've heard a woman in the big, big, job saying how much she cares about the "Just About Managing" and all the other wrongs she would put right while the NHS is being constantly run further into the ground - with extending times for operations and the threats to A&E etc. They also saw the previous Tory lot do a deal to stay in government (that time with the Lib Dems) and the first lesson they learned was that nobody can be trusted when in order to get into power so "for the good of the country" (oh yeah?) the Lib Dem leader broke an electioneering promise about fees (so now they' come out of Uni owing £20£ - £40K.

They've seen how their parents (and they themselves, as soon as they earned enough to pay tax) have been paying for the debts incurred by the politicians trusted by their parents and of course they've seen their parents savings (and their own - if they have any including those "bankbook" presents that grandparents gave them etc) with interest rates failing to be of any significant value and of course, over the last couple of years they've seen them devalued like mad while they earned as little as 0.1 percent - sometimes or maybe as much as 1 whole percent while inflation started eroding the savings value (and over the last year by 3% due mostly to their parents' Brexit vote). If they're in digs they've seen the rising prices and the supermarket tricks of "pay more for less" with smaller packs for (often) increased prices.

They've seen the older (and much wiser?) generation taken in by the flim flam of the politicians who as always avoid, or try as much as possible not to answer any questions properly, blame each other for anything wrong and (if they think they can get away with it) simply just lie. They've also heard as they grew up that "all politicians are the same", "they all lie and cheat" (and not so long ago lots of 'em actually fiddled money on their ex's). Most of them can do sums too and they realise that they have little or no chance of ever buying a house unless they can rely n the Bank of Mum n Dad - but in most cases they can't now because their parents savings (if they had any) have been eroded in the same way.

So all in all they haven't been really taught very objectively have they? And when they realised what was happening with the (not) strong and stable government trying to screw a longer term for mostly self-serving reasons, they started to think it was time they actually should vote. And then they heard Jezzer saying he would wipe their Uni debt, borrow for the country's needs and tax the well-off to pay for it all (remember: as opposed to the current government taxing us to pay for financial fiasco).

Seriously, given the above potted history above is it any wonder they voted for him in their thousands? Those of us who are criticising the 'ability of the young to make quality judgments' need to stop and think - we gave them their experience, we trained them how to judge things and frankly we didn't do such a terrific (I was going to say "sterling"!) job!

If there is another general election soon, they've seen the power of their vote now (and so have quite a lot of badly disillusioned Tory and floating voters) so I would expect thousands more will get the message and a lot of blue-clad MPs will rapidly become unemployed.

Finally, if they're not old enough to vote until their early twenties, we shouldn't expect them to serve in the forces and go to sunny places to be shot at and bombed etc.

 

[davemercedes]

Maybe the man who should be doing the negotiations with Brussels is the man who forced the goverments hand in the first place.
I doubt Farage would make a dog's dinner of it!

I already answered that one - he would either not turn up to the meetings or say "we're off" and negotiate nothing whatsoever. Just look at his appalling attendance and voting record while being paid as an MEP - there's only one bloke worse than him and he's severely disabled.

 

[LostKiwi]

Maybe the man who should be doing the negotiations with Brussels is the man who forced the goverments hand in the first place.
I doubt Farage would make a dog's dinner of it!

He just wouldn't turn up, then he'd claim his expenses and at the end leave with no deal at all and proclaim it a great victory for Britain having done little more than line his pockets for a couple more years.

 

[davemercedes]

He just wouldn't turn up, then he'd claim his expenses and at the end leave with no deal at all and proclaim it a great victory for Britain having done little more than line his pockets for a couple more years.

Yup, the truth is so painful!

 

[Big Cheese]

He single handedly forced Cameron into the referendum & ultimately his demise.
It would finish off his political lifes work if he was involved.

 

[LostKiwi]

He single handedly forced Cameron into the referendum & ultimately his demise.
It would finish off his political lifes work if he was involved.

He singlehandedly failed to represent the UK or his electorate at a huge number of votes in the EU parliament - a job for which he was handsomely paid.

 

[davemercedes]

He single handedly forced Cameron into the referendum & ultimately his demise.
It would finish off his political lifes work if he was involved.

His life's work?
- He didn't do any!
- He didn't turn up most of the time.
- But he did claim boatloads of expenses including the cost of his bodyguards!

I've made a serious point about this before - he and his cronies couldn't even get off their **ses on the day the EU were to discuss steel dumping by China. And why? Because they refused to accept any help from the EU. That must have been really assuring to the thousands up in Wales that Tata was going to shut down for that very reason!

Here you are:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/only-one-person-eu-parliament-8302643
Only one person in the EU Parliament has a worse voting record than Nigel Farage