Life expectancy based voting

I'd sooner have compulsory voting, PR, and proper education about how our version of democracy works.

Perhaps the younger people should get out and vote then?
Personally I do like the idea of a quick test on your chosen parties manifesto to show you have had a look at it.

"kids don't have the life experience to really understand what they're voting for and so should have less of a say"  Discuss.

A large part of domestic politics is about the economy and taxation. My daughter doesn't understand this in anything like the detail that someone who's been in the world of work, families, home ownership, pensions.......etc., so for her vote to carry say 50% more weight is just silly.

What happens when the people who voted at 20 have changed their minds once they turn 40? As the majority of them will have.

A better change would be a system of pr so that you will have representation even if your chosen party were not elected.
The system where in Brexit you get about a 50 50 split and the policy is carried is plain daft as a very small majority can lead to the current completely damaging state of affairs.
Is there any evidence that the young have greater wisdom?
There are idiots in any age group.

The question was consequence not wisdom.  There are old idiots and young, and wisdom frequently does not accrue with age.

If the young were wise they’d get out and vote out any party proposing a pensions triple lock while simultaneously raising the pension age.

The present system enshrines short-termism in our politics, because not only are they having to get results in a parliamentary cycle but voting patterns means they are putting more weight on policies for the old that in either the short or long term the young will pay for.

A large part of domestic politics is about the economy and taxation. My daughter doesn’t understand this in anything like the detail that someone who’s been in the world of work, families, home ownership, pensions…….etc., so for her vote to carry say 50% more weight is just silly.

The idea that people who have “been in the world of work, families, home ownership, pensions” therefore understand taxation and the economy is nonsense.
Some do, most do not. Let’s be honest, many believe in Rishi’s magic money tree that just means the next generation will have to pay.

Just switch to a Logan’s Run based system. Job done.

It's about time we started calling votes 'Likes'.
Swipe left or right for who you like the look of.

The present system enshrines short-termism in our politics, because not only are they having to get results in a parliamentary cycle but voting patterns means they are putting more weight on policies for the old that in either the short or long term the young will pay for.

So a party should be honest and propose a vision of the country that is fairer and more equitable in the 20 years it will take to achieve that, and put in place the tax and spending plans it would require, to encourage the young or more disadvantaged to put their X where where their mouth is and break that cycle of short termism.

For some naive reason I thought Boris was giving Starmer the opportunity to do that and he's missed it.

The idea that people who have “been in the world of work, families, home ownership, pensions” therefore understand taxation and the economy is nonsense.

So votes should somehow be intellect tested as well? More votes for those that are more likely to understand what they're actually voting for?

Well, what actually is the intellectual justification for universal suffrage?

I have another plan.
Remove all party based info from the ballot slips and any info. All they can show is the candidates name and the things they stand for.
It’ll force people to vote on policy and not party.

The problem is, it would send a strong message that a person is of less significance and worth as an individual as they age, that their concerns don't matter and that they are irrelevant.  Treatment of the elderly is already piss poor in this country, I don't think that would help!  What about tapering access to health care as people get older whilst we are at it? Over 75 with a serious heart condition?  Take some paracetamol and **** off! They are only going to die anyway.

Introduce proper PR, hell yes! Reduce the voting age to 16? Yes.  These are concrete measures to empower younger voters, and strengthen democracy.  Empowering younger voters not disenfranchising older ones is a better route IMO.

Well, what actually is the intellectual justification for universal suffrage?

It's because if you select who can vote, then you need a selection process, and someone has to come up with that process. And in doing so you have to judge everyone in society. That tends not to go down very well.

Setting aside the logistics, I would think the problem is that there's just as many stupid people , proportionately across all age groups. The only reason older voters seem keen backing bad ideas is because a good proportion have had a lifetime to become entrenched, and for the remainder the propaganda channels for those in the older demographic groups are narrower so they've been easier to target over the last decade.

Cambridge Analytica only really needed to target stale/pale/male Facebook users over 50 who were technologically litterate enough to podge their fingers at FB ads/groups with pictures of spitfires/union flags/pints of beer, but not familiar enough to realise they were being conducted into an online echo chamber full of propaganda and lies designed to drive them to the political Right.

If you weighted voting towards the younger generations, it would just mean the party with the biggest financial and media backing (whoever that might be) who would simply refocus more resources on messaging the yoofs. The sophistication of their campaigns is only ever a matter of finance and everyone's susceptible in some way.

It's basically marketing, not politics at this point. Whoever has the better targeted ad/propaganda campaign in GE year gets to win.

A better way to shore up our electoral systems fairness and veracity would be refining the rules around the funding of advertising and social media use for campaigning including caps on spending, allowable methods of promotion and more rigidly enforced fact checking. These things were tried, but essentially steam rolled in 2016 and haven't had much meaningful development since (IMO)...

What happens when the people who voted at 20 have changed their minds once they turn 40? As the majority of them will have.

could have had over 5 general elections in that time to change their mind I guess

Treatment of the elderly is already piss poor in this country, I don’t think that would help!

This country is set up for the benefit of the elderly (literally).

The vast majority of the benefits system is spent on the elderly - and they are the only ones with a triple lock on their benefits.
The vast majority of the health care system is (understandably) spent on the elderly - although yo be fair there is already a tapering / rationing system in place if medics don’t think it will bring meaningful benefit.
The housing market benefits the old more than the young.
Pension provision is on a downward trajectory.

The list goes on. It’s amazing the younger generation put up with it really.

I disagree with anyone's vote being worth less than someone else's.

I too would rather see Proportional Representation and better education around why you should vote.

I am not sure about forcing folk to vote.

I also would see a higher standard of rules around who can be a candidate in an election - both to stand and to hold office - and that those standards are applied with consequences.

I’d sooner have compulsory voting, PR, and proper education about how our version of democracy works.

Agreed.

I disagree with anyone’s vote being worth less than someone else’s.

Agreed.

I am not sure about forcing folk to vote.

They wouldn't be "forced" to chose their preferred candidate though, just mandated to cast a vote. They could vote for "none of the above". But paired with PR, you would hope it was more likely that they could find someone to vote for, without considering it a wasted vote or the second worst option. And there are lots of administrative acts that we are "forced" to do... registering births, deaths etc.

Well, what actually is the intellectual justification for universal suffrage?

Me! Me!

Is it because giving the rabble the meanest form of what they think they want and telling them it is what they want suppresses the mob from acting on the urge to behead rich w**s (the mob of course fails to realise that having beheaded one elite, a new set of w**s become the new elite, less beholden to any sense of social decency given the prevailing mood of violence and intimidation and their galvanised sociopathy given their participation in beheading the previous w*****s)?

Or put another way... stability above all else or you get Russia.

A better change would be a system of pr so that you will have representation even if your chosen party were not elected.

This.

Yes, there are all sorts of frustrations with having everyone's vote count equally but the alternative is much worse. What you'll end up with is parties working to disenfranchise groups who tend not to vote for them, which is pretty much the Republican Party's policy in the U.S. Democracy has to be transparent for people to accept it as fair and having every vote count equally is an important part of that. Proportional representation helps with this, weighting people's votes differently will not.

This country is set up for the benefit of the elderly (literally).

The vast majority of the benefits system is spent on the elderly – and they are the only ones with a triple lock on their benefits.
The vast majority of the health care system is (understandably) spent on the elderly – although yo be fair there is already a tapering / rationing system in place if medics don’t think it will bring meaningful benefit.
The housing market benefits the old more than the young.
Pension provision is on a downward trajectory.

The list goes on. It’s amazing the younger generation put up with it really.

I don't know if you have any close relatives trying to live on a state pension at the moment?  Or in care?  Or on incapacity benefit?  I have, I'll pass on your message of how great things are for them and tell them to chin up.  My Dad (87) recently had a bypass and heart valve replacement.  He was told, directly that he would die within the year if he didn't have it.  In the next sentence he was told the waiting list for the Op on the NHS was 12-18 months.  He spent his life savings and a chunk of ours to have it done privately.  Yep everything is rosey in the old peoples home.

@blokeuptheroad Both my parents died in a care home one of covid, one probable covid, so I’m a bit lacking in elderly relatives these days. Sorry.

For the most part, parliaments make decisions for the here and now, and almost all voters get 5 years of consequences. Sure, a few die in that time, primarily elderly, but not a huge proportion in the overall scheme of things.

Really big longer-term decisions should require a larger and more stable majority, that's the principle behind supermajorities in referenda (and constitutional changes in other countries etc).

No-one under the age of ~25 voted for Brexit, and we know that the vast majority are against it.

A bigger problem is that governments are elected on 40% of the vote. Sort that out and we'd have a better government.

@igm I am (genuinely) sorry to hear that, but I wasn't playing grief top trumps.

We've got 5 year parliamentary sessions, so no. Most should be able to see out the consequences of their vote. We don't have particularly long term governments.

I have another plan.
Remove all party based info from the ballot slips

Back to pre-1970?

lunge
Full Member
I have another plan.
Remove all party based info from the ballot slips and any info. All they can show is the candidates name and the things they stand for.
It’ll force people to vote on policy and not party.

A better idea would be to make it illegal for parties to whip MPs to vote a certain way. MPs should vote along the desires of the constituency not the party.

@blokeuptheroad apologies I probably came back a bit hard with that response.

Look, I agree that there are downsides to getting older and definitely specific cases that run absolutely against my view, overall though the resources put into provision for the elderly and the assets and savings they have are greater than the equivalent for the young.

My parents were lucky enough to go to university (first generation in both families) and the tuition was free and the grant enough for them to buy their first flat.
I was amongst the first to be offered a student loan - but no grant. Tuition was still free though.
My children won’t even get free tuition.

My parents pensions were well in excess of what my wife and I get, which is well in excess of what folk start work today might expect - and both I and those new starters will get the state pension years later than my parents.

My parents owned a few houses over the years, generally selling for between 3 and 10 times what they paid.  They sold the family home for 20 times what their largest ever mortgage was.

Yes they were lucky, yes they were exceedingly careful with money, but they really weren’t that unusual.
They would be unusual two generations on.

We’ve got 5 year parliamentary sessions, so no. Most should be able to see out the consequences of their vote. We don’t have particularly long term governments.

I think that’s part of the problem. A lot of worthwhile things on a national basis take longer than 5 years. Infrastructure projects for example, possibly levelling up (take your own view on that).
But politicians end up thinking short term because of those short term parliamentary sessions.
And that is compounded when you’re trying to get a 65 year old to vote for you based on a policy that pays off in 20-25 years.
Not saying a 20 year old would be better, but there’s probably more chance.

I don’t know if you have any close relatives trying to live on a state pension at the moment?

It's pretty much universally considered by those in the know that state pension, whilst not bountiful, is by some margin easier to live on that it has been. It certainly has seen real world increases way beyond other benefits.

Also, whilst clearly not everyone has benefited from it, this is the last generation with significant numbers benefiting from defined benefit employer pensions.

They may not feel it now, but history will show the current oldies had the golden years of the holy grail of retirement age, life expectancy, equity in property and pension income. It has never been as good as it is now, and won't return to what is now 'enjoyed' in any imaginable time in the future.

I’d sooner have compulsory voting, PR, and proper education about how our version of democracy works.

But returning to the question - this is surely the only way to go.

If 5 year parliaments are the problem then your proposed voting system isn't the fix. Just think of how great it would be if we had 15 year parliaments and you had to put up with the current rabble. And for every example of how great things used to be there are many of folk who struggled by, died in poverty etc.

Maybe we should adopt the Starship Troopers approach - no voting without National Service.

If you weighted voting towards the younger generations, it would just mean the party with the biggest financial and media backing (whoever that might be) who would simply refocus more resources on messaging the yoofs.

Definitely this, there are a lot of stupid/upset/gullible people in every demographic.

I now really want to see what CA's pro-Brexit marketing at the u30s would have been.

I mentioned in the last politics thread. Ive lived in 3 constituencies as an adult. My political alleigances have changed too, and I have voted for every major (english) party. Yet I have never successfully elected an MP.
I'm no fan of PR as advertised* but there is certainly a problem where only a few geographic areas are actually in control, and within those, certain demographics are disproportianltely targeted by policy.

*my proposal is that the MPs remain as-is in both election and roles, but the prime minister comes from the party winning the popular vote, rather than most seats in the house.

I am not sure about forcing folk to vote.

Not even Aussie style? We love borrowing ideas from Australia these days...

Mandatory attendance at a polling station/Postal voting, and you're fined if you don't. That doesn't seem terrible to me. People would still have the option of attending and spoiling their polling card as a protest. I have to say I'm sort of in favour of mandatory voting in the UK, Certainly more than building some flavour of ageism into the system...

You're not "forcing" them you are "incentivising" people to participate in democracy, being fined for not voting could effectively be framed as an "apathy tax" rather than an encroachment on freedoms.
I think the reason such things haven't been enacted previously is because the established parties really don't know what would happen with ~100% turn out.

Proportional representation - in some form, would seem to be the way to go to get better presentation at a national level, however it does lead to swivel eyed loons being given a platform.

More importantly compulsory voting ( it is generally roof that don't vote) - but most importantly is education that informs people that most issues have several aspects to them - it's not "right" or 'wrong". Understanding of the bigger picture and economics ( again, a multi-faceted topic, with many different arguments). would all happen.

However to do that, you will have to take a huge amount of people out of the mono informational world that they have chosen to select on social media.

A better idea would be to make it illegal for parties to whip MPs to vote a certain way. MPs should vote along the desires of the constituency not the party.

But then you run into the issue of what does that person stand for and what alliances are they going to make and why.
Parties and whipping seem to be a emergent property of democratic systems. There are only a handful of democratic countries which dont have them but the common factor is they have tiny populations. Once you hit a certain size and lose the personal factor parties seem to emerge.

ayjaydoubleyou

I now really want to see what CA’s pro-Brexit marketing at the u30s would have been.

That depends who's paying them...
If you take other elections CA have interfered in it can be as simple as discouraging voting. (You're vote is worthless, better to protest)

mattoutandabout

I disagree with anyone’s vote being worth less than someone else’s.

But this is actually the case in an era of quite literally buying votes through social media.

The cost per vote (or non vote) is different according to demographics.

I disagree with anyone’s vote being worth less than someone else’s.

But this is actually the case in an era of quite literally buying votes through social media.

It's also the case if you live in a rock solid safe seat or a swing seat.

I think there should be a test in order to earn the right to vote, e.g. anyone who thinks road tax pays for roads is banned from voting for 10 years....

I disagree with anyone’s vote being worth less than someone else’s.

Depends what you're voting for. If your voting about education costs, a 16 year old should have more say than a 70 year old. If your voting about tax, a 30 year old who works should have more say than a 16 year old who doesn't.

Or instead of voting for a party, we vote per category. E.g. education, tax, police, pension, etc.

I now really want to see what CA’s pro-Brexit marketing at the u30s would have been.

They Probably would have said that freedom of movement was Robbing the Yoof of service sector jobs, hoovering up all the University spots and generally taking opportunities from indigenous Brits under 30, they'd probably have glossed over freedom of movement or common market issues, essentially watered down racism and appealing to some vague idea of "self interest" for plebs. Maybe a bit less Jingoism and a bit more imagery of young beautiful people buying smoothies, and dancing in swimwear with all the moneys and free time they'd have post Brexit...

Instead it's two zero hours jobs and a side hustle for those millennials, and nobody under 35 has the cash to splash on a trip to Ibiza this summer... Maybe four nights in Magaluf if they can get some extra hours in on Deliveroo this month.

and anyone who calls it road tax ?

I tend to edge towards proportional representation as others do, how it's implemented is another argument all together!

As for the old voting tendencies, it's just something that tends to happen for a lot of people, they move towards the right as they get older, and from discussions they tend to agree with the daily mail view of the world, we talk about the young not understanding things like tax, policy, etc, a lot of the old are just as bad when i have discussed things like Brexit, or privatisation, and unfortunately they vote with those beliefs.

@blokeuptheroad apologies I probably came back a bit hard with that response.

As did I with the one preceding it, for which I too apologise, not an excuse but it's an emotive subject - for both of us it seems. Again, I am sorry for your loss.

convert

It’s also the case if you live in a rock solid safe seat or a swing seat.

True but in a different way than I meant. (sort of)

What I really meant is there is an actual financial £/$ cost per reach / vote changed/not voted and yes that is more in a marginal seat or certain demographics.

This is because as I think you are pointing out correctly that changing a few votes in a safe seat is almost valueless.
I guess the difference is subtle...I think what I see as worse at the moment is it is really pretty much buying votes or non votes

Obviously for ages a party leader or big-wig would spend actual money going to a marginal seat etc. but I personally find the newer paying someone like CA money on a per vote delivered or prevented basis more disturbing?

cookeaa

They Probably would have said that

Based on other elections CA rigged it's FAR easier and more effective to just convince a demographic to not vote.

@blokeuptheroad. Thank you.  And I trust things go well as possible with your relatives.

Thanks! 🙂

The vast majority of the benefits system is spent on the elderly

In some countries, there's more private insurance and lower taxes. We pay National Insurance. The state pension isn't a welfare benefit, it's paid for while working.

I'm 67. If my vote counted for less I'd be pretty annoyed, and I was strongly opposed to Brexit.

The state pension isn’t a welfare benefit, it’s paid for while working.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the government doesn’t open a savings / investment account somewhere to keep the pension contributions in. The pension is paid for by present tax payers.

Like I said, correct me if I’m wrong.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/statepensionfunds

The UK State Pension is unfunded, which means that its obligations are not underpinned by an actual fund or funds. Such schemes are often referred to as “Pay As You Go” (PAYG). The pension payments made by the government for unfunded pensions are financed on an ongoing basis from National Insurance contributions and general taxation.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the government doesn’t open a savings / investment account somewhere to keep the pension contributions in.

You are not wrong. It's still amusing that people still believe the national insurance is something different to other general taxation and the revenue does not just get lobbed in the treasury coffers along with all other tax. There are still people out there who think there is some little pot of their NI building up with their name on to pay for their care or pension one day.

The only difference with NI is that to get a full state pension you need to have paid 30 years worth of national insurance contributions OR credits. You get credits when unemployed, or a carer or parent. How much you paid in is entirely irrelevant to what you get out - just the fact that you were paying in for the required number of years is sufficient. So you don't really pay for it whilst your were working.

convert

You are not wrong. It’s still amusing that people still believe the national insurance is something different to other general taxation and the revenue does not just get lobbed in the treasury coffers along with all other tax. There are still people out there who think there is some little pot of their NI building up with their name on to pay for their care or pension one day.

The only difference with NI is that to get a full state pension you need to have paid 30 years worth of national insurance contributions OR credits. You get credits when unemployed, or a carer or parent. How much you paid in is entirely irrelevant to what you get out – just the fact that you were paying in for the required number of years is sufficient. So you don’t really pay for it whilst your were working.

Which begs the question of "these people" should be allowed to vote.
This at least questions the point of a democratic system where people can be lied to and misled on the proviso then can then not vote for the party that lied/misled them decades later (in this case).

Which begs the question of “these people” should be allowed to vote.

The whole tax system is pretty disingenuous, politicians are quite happy for people to believe that NI pays for pensions and VED / Road Tax pays for roads etc as they are somehow easier to put up than Income Tax.

the government doesn’t open a savings / investment account somewhere to keep the pension contributions in.

Of course they don't. They put them into the Treasury with everything else. That doesn't mean the contributions weren't paid.

The pension is paid for by present tax payers.

It's paid from the Treasury, which puts all its income into one pot and owns the national debt (which is smaller because of the tax contributions). The concept of any government expenditure being paid from a specific source is nonsense.

So you don’t really pay for it whilst your were working.

You do, except that what you pay is related to what you earn.

That doesn’t mean the contributions weren’t paid.

You pay your NI for a sufficient number of years (or gain unpaid for credits) to qualify for a pension.

but this

The state pension isn’t a welfare benefit, it’s paid for while working.

is deluded/ muddled thinking.

Other way round I reckon. The older you are the more experience you have of government cock ups. The youngsters I meet who can be bothered to think about this issue haven't a clue.
I have my doubts about the whole system. I mean, our MPs will support issues in Parliament without our opinion. We elect them on trust based on our views of a supposed system or value of the party. Do they ask the voters about issues? Nope. It will be party first, personal bias next then local opinion. My MP was for a while a junior minister. That meant that he had less time for us as he had another job to do. The whole idea is crackers.
Ignoring that the Best idea for voting I have found was invented by Nevil Shute. Basically you get a basic vot plus others for contributions to society. The more you give the more votes you get. Go and read In the Wet.

I’d sooner have compulsory voting, PR, and proper education about how our version of democracy works.

I think we're all getting an eduction on how our version of democracy works.

The state pension isn’t a welfare benefit, it’s paid for while working.

is deluded/ muddled thinking.

If it was a welfare benefit, it would be based on need, not on contributions or deemed contributions.

Life expectancy based voting

No.

@Greybeard

- if it wasn’t a welfare benefit you would have some idea of the basis of the payout when you were paying in - the government couldn’t just change it up or down completely at random, including when you get it and what contributions might be required

- if it wasn’t a welfare benefit then your level of contributions would reflect your level of payout (it never did in cash terms, which has become more tenuous, and only vaguely in years)

- if it wasn’t a welfare benefit then the triple lock would not exist

It’s a bit like child benefit used to be - though that was a universal welfare benefit and I don’t think the pension is quite as universal.

Or maybe it’s just a way of paying off old folk to get them to vote the right way. 😉

Me, I think it’s a perfectly reasonable welfare benefit,  and a reasonable society should look after it’s elderly, those who can’t work, or can’t find work, or are too young to work or have caring duties.  We do need to make sure it’s not to the undue detriment of other parts of society or society as a whole.

And while I’m on a roll, let me rant about university fees.  Yes a good education is to the benefit of the individual, but equally an educated and capable workforce is to the benefit of all society.  The recipient of that education will probably be better paid (probably), and society benefits from more tax take, more economic activity and more jobs (again generally and probably). Why are we putting all the costs in one place?  Ageist, short-termism.

There's a strong case for raising the voting age to at least 25. Just look at the joke MPs that get elected in university dorm constituencies such as Sheffield Hallam.

If anyone would like to read some background (facts!) on the strange direction this thread has taken, which appears to be welfare state stuff, Google the Beveridge report.

It's interesting, honestly, and you'd be surprised how much is still in play as the basis of policy today.

Other way round I reckon. The older you are the more experience you have of government cock ups.

Depends on whether you pay attention to such things.
A 24yo who reads private eye each week since they were 17 is liable to be rather better informed than a 70yo who only watched coronation street.
Time spent only counts if it is done productively.

If it helps, my 11 year old was insisting on listening to the VONC coverage on Radio 4 this evening as we drove up to his cycle coaching.

He and his 16 year old brother both read Private Eye.  They have a subscription.

The young have little wisdom but plenty of passion which is easily appealed to by malignant politicians. The old can get set in their ways.

It (democracy) is a terrible system, just everything else is even worse 😀

There’s a strong case for raising the voting age to at least 25. Just look at the joke MPs that get elected in university dorm constituencies such as Sheffield Hallam.

Yeah, and student union politics is an eye-opener for how politically wacko young people can be.

It (democracy) is a terrible system, just everything else is even worse

benign dictatorship with me as dictator. thats the best way.

We dont actually live in a democracy.

I have lived in Rishis constituency for 40 voting years, my vote has never counted towards anything i believe in politically.

I have no ability to influence any elections without moving house.

Westminster is a pseudo / partial democracy

Voting should be compulsory and PR.

We dont actually live in a democracy.

I have lived in Rishis constituency for 40 voting years, my vote has never counted towards anything i believe in politically.

Same for me. If there are going to be parties then have a party vote and a representative vote. The representative would be not party affiliated and the vote would be be for the person you think is best suited rather than the person who happens to wear a certain colour of rosette. They could also only stay in job for 4 years and get reviewed each year to ensure they are still representing what the area wants.

Let’s be honest, many believe in Rishi’s magic money tree that just means the next generation will have to pay.

And you've just proved by your own standards that you don't understand the role of the national 'debt' and taxation.

It's not an age thing. It's an informed thing.

(Future generations are not liable for previous generations spending. See my many posts on government spending.)

footflaps

The whole (tax) system is pretty disingenuous, politicians are quite happy for people to believe....

Just remove the word tax....

i scoff cakes

The young have little wisdom but plenty of passion which is easily appealed to by malignant politicians. The old can get set in their ways.

This is true but it's also a reason why buying social media votes is so concerning.

maccruiskeen

I think we’re all getting an eduction on how our version of democracy works.

Well, some are ... others will feel more comfortable not.

Fundamentally the issue is that we rely on elections to express our dissatisfaction .. or that itself isn't the issue but that these elections are then manipulated.

To use one example:

oldmanmtb2

I have lived in Rishis constituency for 40 voting years, my vote has never counted towards anything i believe in politically.

This is partially true....

I have no ability to influence any elections without moving house.

This is just a counter...I'm not actually suggesting you should move so basically you don't have the power of your convictions or you'd move house. I'm guessing property would be cheaper as well 😉 .. and fundamentally i'm wondering about your local council .. I'm guessing they are Conservative as well (it being a supersafe seat)... but people presumably vote for them?

The other big thing for me though is that because of this there is no accountability for lying to the electorate. [or for that matter parliament or full council meetings]

As an example I don't know how many people really believed the £350M a week bus... it was fairly comprehensively debunked yet many people STILL voted for 'the liars' regardless. Just one example.. the point is people know politicians are lying and just accept it. There are a million and one other examples but the fundamental seems to be some idea that "I know they are lying about that BUT...surely they aren't lying about this other thing I care about"

I guess few people even know how few MP's need to actually turn up to vote on an Act?

41.Quorum
(1)If it should appear that fewer than forty Members (including the occupant of the chair and the tellers) have taken part in a division, the business under consideration shall stand over until the next sitting of the House and the next business shall be taken.

(2)The House shall not be counted at any time.

40/650 = 6.2%

So WE elect an MP... out MP is "meant" to vote in our interests yet new Acts are passed without MP's even being arsed to turn up and do what they are paid for?

It's way worse though because even assuming they turn up there is no requirement to read let alone understand the Bill they are voting on, assuming they are allowed to vote according to their convictions.

@Rone Your suggestion that future generations do not have to pay for today’s public debt is a view held by some, and works given certain caveats and limitations on the breadth of your context, but is not clear cut.
Nor to be fair, is my contention that they do.
I think overall we’re probably both right, depending on the actual circumstances and your choice of definitions.

I think the reality of it is that it comes down to a question of degree of debt, where that debt is held, what is done with the funds provided by the debt, effective interest rates, direct repayment (highly unlikely), proxy repayment (now that happens, and affects the pound in one’s pocket) and what you think “pay” means in the context of a future generation paying.  And probably a load of other stuff.

Of course if I’m wrong we should all get the government to stop charging tuition fees, reinstate the grant and enjoy the benefits of a workforce educated and trained according to ability to learn and apply that learning, not the ability to pay.

Actually, we should do that anyway.  But Blair is wrong, we don’t need 70% of folk with degrees, we need some degrees, some craft training etc, and a bit of respect for different sorts of abilities and capabilities.

Anyway, feel free to point out where I’m wrong and educate me. Always happy to learn.

igm

I think overall we’re probably both right, depending on the actual circumstances and your choice of definitions.

I was going to say the same ...

Anyway, feel free to point out where I’m wrong and educate me. Always happy to learn.

Even from a pure financial repayment I'm struggling to see how a future generation are not paying for debt unless the government just default ?

From a local council PoV my council has accrued £47,000 of Debt for me (based ion per capita/electorate) with no plan to pay back. Somehow this 55 Bn£ it will need to be paid somewhere and this is a single borough council.. with a significant part of that debt to central government.

Woking borrowed heavily from central government’s Public Works Loan Board for its £700m flagship housing and retail complex Victoria Square, for which it is not expected to break even for 40 years.

It needs to pay back £55.5m a year in interest payments and to put this in context, this year’s council tax revenue is £10.6m.

So my son can move elsewhere perhaps but still someone is paying back that debt???

@IGM thanks for you detailed response.

First understand it's not a debt as you and I would know debt - it's bond issuance - that is, matched to government spending that helps control liquidity and becomes a safe place for the private sector to store funds. Bond issuance is an option that governments can choose to take or not take.

Government spending comes before the bond issuance.

The national 'debt' acts as money that hasn't been taxed back out of circulation - an ongoing record of all public spending that has taken place. It doesn't get 'paid' back in any meaningful way. If it was totally paid back for instance - Premium Bonds / National Savings would cease to exist.

In over 70 years virtually none of the national debt has ever been 'paid' back - I believe about 40billion (99-2001) and a few odd years - that's about it. Given the national debt is currently recorded at over 2.2 trillion ... And the BoE owns 900 billion of that. It just doesn't get paid back as you understand it.

Here is the latest paper which details the way government spending occurs.

https://medium.com/iipp-blog/embrace-the-self-financing-state-it-is-already-here-35cef7595495

This can get complex quite quickly and I don't pretend to know all the exact ins and out of all the Government's accounting procedure but just know the country would grind to halt without government spending taking place first.