You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
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.
Local councils are currency users and thus bound by raising revenue or borrowing money. They largely have the same fiscal constraints we have.
Central government is a totally different model.
The UK (along with any other sovereign countries with central banks / fiat currency.) The UK Government cannot default - it's impossible. It's THE issuer of the £££. By design.
Local councils are currency users and thus bound by raising revenue or borrowing money. They largely have the same fiscal constraints we have.
Central government is a totally different model.
The UK (along with any other sovereign countries with central banks / fiat currency.) The UK Government cannot default – it’s impossible. It’s THE issuer of the £££. By design.
I'm not seeing any difference other than who the money is owed to.... and consequences.
If the council issue a Section 114 notice there are consequences in that the government will step in.
The councillors have already checked out... their own companies will have been paid first and they leave the borough and they are debt free. (Indeed last council leader already did, wound hos companies up and sodded off to his estate in Scotland) We "the electorate" are left owning a failed set of projects the councillors companies got paid to build.
Of the UK's external debt the government can just refuse to pay... what's going to happen?
@Rone Agree with 99.9% of what you say, possibly more, and definitely the bit about bonds and debt.
Isn’t inflation the natural consequence of the impossibility of default - ie the default just takes a different shape?
(There are other causes of inflation of course)
The councillors have already checked out… their own companies will have been paid first and they leave the borough and they are debt free. (Indeed last council leader already did, wound hos companies up and sodded off to his estate in Scotland) We “the electorate” are left owning a failed set of projects the councillors companies got paid to build.
I think we're at cross-purposes. I don't really have anything to add on local councils other than they can't issue money so debt obligations have a real affect on balance sheets etc.
what’s going to happen?
Currency crash, and in the fallout of that asking the IMF and/or other states or intergovernmental bodies for a bailout.
Our government has full control (some supposedly arm's length, but still ultimately all down to the government in the end) over "how much" money exists... and where intragovernmental "debt" is accounted for... but it isn't totally in control of the "value" of that money (what it can ultimately buy or deliver)... the rest of the world still exists.
Isn’t inflation the natural consequence of the impossibility of default – ie the default just takes a different shape?
From what I can see about inflation - there isn't one thing that causes inflation. There are different scenarios just like a water leak can be caused by different things.
It's also complex and I don't pretend to know loads about inflation.
But I will say this - capitalists use inflation to support silly observations. I.e they say government spending causes inflation but they never say commercial banks issuing too many loans causes inflation.
In my bit of research most inflation / hyperinflation is driven by supply issues / or lack of available appropriately skilled labour. There is not enough emphasis on the the 'too few goods' part of the argument.
Agreed many causes.
Both to little and to much borrowing will cause issues.
At both government and corporate level.
See sub-prime mortgages followed by the credit crunch.
The problems can vary.
Anyway, I’ve forgotten the original topic now…
Fun though.
Of the UK’s external debt the government can just refuse to pay… what’s going to happen?
Debt denominated in a different currency is a whole different ball game.
Anyway, I’ve forgotten the original topic now…
Yes, sorry I keep doing this with topics - but it's so interwoven.
I must start a thread about MMT.
Both to little and to much borrowing will cause issues.
For sure that's why the approach should be a balanced economy and not balanced goverment books.
You haven’t got the maturity (or interest) at 18 or even 21 to fully understand the politics and political games involved. I was much more interested in partying, big brother and Neighbours at that age. I do like the idea of each candidate having a specific pledge(s) though - a list of local things they will do if they win - could be loosly based on their representative party.
You haven’t got the maturity (or interest) at 18 or even 21 to fully understand the politics and political games involved.
Speak for yourself. But then my father was a politics professor.
rone
I think we’re at cross-purposes. I don’t really have anything to add on local councils other than they can’t issue money so debt obligations have a real affect on balance sheets etc.
What I'm saying is only my council has £1.84Bn debt or something like £47k per council tax payer ..
It's not THEIR money .. they lend this money they borrow from public works board to their mates companies.. or just give them work and overpay. (£47k is not far off the national debt per capita)
It would have been another £250M had their attempt to loan this to a mate not been scuppered..
So it looks to me like the UK national Debt is probably almost double the actual? Money BORROWED externally is then being LOANED to councils... who then pay it to mates or their own companies or given to contracts with mates for non existent products or inflated prices.
At the point we can't pay it back they just quit .. the example is my council can't pay the interest on it's debt... so now it's collapsing.
Result, those who borrowed the money on our behalf wind up their gravy train companies and retire early to their estates. Someone .. somewhere is either not being paid or losing their loan but nothing happens to those who borrow on our behalf.
So what happens AFTER the UK can't pay back it's external national debt?
kelvin
Currency crash, and in the fallout of that asking the IMF and/or other states or intergovernmental bodies for a bailout.
Our government has full control (some supposedly arm’s length, but still ultimately all down to the government in the end) over “how much” money exists… and where intragovernmental “debt” is accounted for… but it isn’t totally in control of the “value” of that money (what it can ultimately buy or deliver)… the rest of the world still exists.
Yep but what happens to those who borrowed the money on our behalf?
Let's take our current chancellor as it's obvious he isn't going to be in the UK when it all collapses. Meanwhile he's borrowing money on behalf of the UK and his mates and other Tory donors are getting contracts/back handers ..
So when it all comes crashing down... what are the actual consequences for Sunak? He'll be sat in one of his downdown Mumbai residences with his mates round ...
You or I would be embarrassed if we'd defrauded a person, let alone a nation but I get the idea he's going to be bragging and calling in those favours.
I can't see Bojo being around the UK either...
Of course this was far more difficult in the past when we had the interfering EU looking over our shoulders even outside the Eurozone... not impossible, just less open.
So genuine question ...
What makes you think anyone in the cabinet gives a monkey's as to IF UK debt is ever repaid (or not) ... they aren't going to be there if everything comes crashing down.
Now extend that ... how many MP's actually care of the (future) outcome of an Act they vote for or against or don't bother vs re-election?
Given the way social media is used and the lack of any consequences for just straight out lying the entire democratic process seems like one big scam.
rone
From what I can see about inflation – there isn’t one thing that causes inflation. There are different scenarios just like a water leak can be caused by different things.
It’s also complex and I don’t pretend to know loads about inflation.
But I will say this – capitalists use inflation to support silly observations. I.e they say government spending causes inflation but they never say commercial banks issuing too many loans causes inflation.
So start smaller... hence the example of my council.
They can't pay back the money they borrowed, indeed they can't pay back the interest so ...
1) They borrow more money to pay back the interest
2) Our council tax goes up
3) Council optional (non CT) services cost is increased (e.g. parking permits, garden waste collection)
4) Rents on council commercial property increases .. companies leave, employees lose their jobs
1 - obviously just spirals but
2/3 sound very much like inflation to me
4) sounds like a cost of living crisis
what are the actual consequences for Sunak?
He'd probably make very large amounts of money out of it. See also Rees-Mogg and Javid.
Anyway... all irrelevant when talking about voting age... there are young people who know how Sunak, Rees-Mogg and Javid made their fortunes, and how they don't need the UK currency to remain buoyant to stay rich, or become richer. And plenty of older people who don't even know who they are.
You haven’t got the maturity (or interest) at 18 or even 21 to fully understand the politics and political games involved.
Do you seriously think the average voter of *any* age has the interest or maturity to fully understand...?
I would bet a large sum you've never done any canvassing for an election. Quite an eye-opening process. The average voter is thick, uninterested, largely ignorant of the issues that have been prominent in the national media, let alone those that haven't.
The strange thing is that people bother to vote at all, given what a complete waste of time it is for the vast majority of them.
The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
or perhaps
The trouble with democracy is that 50 percent of the voters are below average.
So what happens AFTER the UK can’t pay back it’s external national debt?
Do you mean money borrowed in a foreign currency?
kelvin
He’d probably make very large amounts of money out of it. See also Rees-Mogg and Javid.
Anyway… all irrelevant when talking about voting age… there are young people who know how Sunak, Rees-Mogg and Javid made their fortunes, and how they don’t need the UK currency to remain buoyant to stay rich, or become richer. And plenty of older people who don’t even know who they are.
It's not really irrelevant though as life experience plays a part. How big a part will depend but ..
Sticking with Sunak (as he's chancellor) he's got zero life experience of not being able to fill the car up to get to work or juggling between feeding kids or keeping them warm. It's something he's managed to avoid. (Obviously Rees-Mogg is the same but just trying to keep it "more" focussed")
I think we would both agree he is completely unqualified to understand what effects his COL crisis exerts on the poorest. I'd say it's lack of experience.
Until you have been actively involved in paying for a household you really have little or no idea what's involved.
Obviously some people never learn... but we have to have a cut off somewhere. We can't have 6yr old voting can we (7 is usually considered a minimum age for delayed gratification)
My kid was voted class rep in Yr1 based on "a rain shelter" and "watching movies in lessons" and it gradually gets "better" from then for most people.
Somewhere between icecreams and movies and paying a mortgage/rent/bills or (for example) a £250 loan for fuel and increasing NI is some sort of balance?
Yes we still get Sun/Daily Redtop readers but even they start to see when they have been lied to and misled time after time.
A safe default is any politician that got elected as far as being an MP is corrupt.. there are practically no consequences for lying and corruption and only negative consequences for having integrity. This starts at Parish council then borough then unitary/county and finally (perhaps) at MP's. You only learn this through experience.
At the other end someone older might be biased to something that potentially helps end of life care... but then that comes to us all eventually.
Rain shelter sounds like it might have been a very useful facility. Good on them for thinking of and proposing it.
Plenty of people don't bother voting, I really don't see what the motivation is for putting barriers in the way of people who want to. The idea that it's some sort of important privilege is really bizarre. It's a minor inconvenience at best, that brings zero chance of any benefit for a large majority of voters.
Until you have been actively involved in paying for a household you really have little or no idea what’s involved.
Again, there are young people who know exactly what is required, and older people who do not. Kids topping up pre payment cards for gas meters to try and keep their ill parents warm. The assumption that a 17 year old has no life experience is made by people who may well have had a pretty sheltered teenage life... many do not. Likewise, some people can get pretty far in life with others keeping the cold hand of poverty well away from them. Many young people aren't insulated from life, and some older people are. All should get the same voting rights. If you're old enough to do work you can be taxed on, you should get a vote. A national insurance number should give you the vote.
Many young people aren’t insulated from life
Having listened to my wife's stories from the college I can confirm this.
footflaps Full Member
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….
One problem with that sort of idea is that the questions in any such test could be subject to political interference. Even if every attempt was made to avoid that there'd still be a high risk of some ingrained institutional/cultural bias causing problems.
Imagine the outrage on here if the questions included any sort of bias towards neoliberal or classical economic concepts - probably pretty much orthodoxy amongst the UK's politicians and civil servants but definitely not likely to go down well with many politically active/aware STWers.
Again, there are young people who know exactly what is required, and older people who do not.
Agreed but you have to draw a line somewhere...
Kids topping up pre payment cards for gas meters to try and keep their ill parents warm.
That isn't running a household though... and most parents are going to insulate their kids from the full effects ... In my day it was 50p pieces for the gas meter.. but that doesn't mean I fully realised my mother was lying when she said she wasn't eating because she had eaten at work.
The assumption that a 17 year old has no life experience is made by people who may well have had a pretty sheltered teenage life… many do not. Likewise, some people can get pretty far in life with others keeping the cold hand of poverty well away from them. Many young people aren’t insulated from life, and some older people are.
I'm not saying NO life experience, I'm saying a different degree of life experience ...
All should get the same voting rights.
That's just ridiculous taken literally.. if you can't read or write how are you mean to vote in any meaningful way? Surely you aren't suggesting pre-school kids should vote because that's what ALL means? I'm assuming you don't mean in literally hence there has to be some cut-off.
If you’re old enough to do work you can be taxed on, you should get a vote. A national insurance number should give you the vote.
Old enough to work and actually working and maintaining a household are unrelated.
These laws were made by those over 18... so over 18's took away a child's right to work AND forced them into full time education whether they want to or not.
I started work at 13 .. my 12 yr old currently works (not this second as he's in school) cash in hand but my/his motivation for working is nothing to do with running a household.
He is currently working in order to buy a gaming computer.. not because he is contributing to the household income and he won't be fed or clothed if he doesn't.
It's profoundly different.
His vote could be bought with a minimum of effort... with something that will be redundant in a year or so's time because he's 12.
So granted there are 18yr olds and 21yr olds and even some 40+yr olds who view the latest phone or trainers as more important than putting food on the table or repairing the leaking roof etc. etc. but generally that trend decreases drastically with the responsibility of putting food in the table.
Equally there are 16 or 18 yr olds who worry about putting food on the table or feeding the baby on a daily basis ... but far less of them.
So a different way to look at this is out of a bunch of 16yr old kids 5% of which have actual responsibilities and 95% don't putting the vote with them gives the 95% who can be bought by a "government phone scheme" etc. the voice over those who want to see VAT on food reduced because they are unable to feed themselves/family.
Slide that age about ...
The Captain
Rain shelter sounds like it might have been a very useful facility. Good on them for thinking of and proposing it.
Yes but this wasn't the actual vote winner if I remember (its years ago now) I was the one trying to press him to do something other than ice cream at lunch and watching movies in class.
Regardless if the rain shelter comes at the expense of paying a teacher it's probably not a good thing. As far as I know it was never built anyway ... nor ever was going to be.
Plenty of people don’t bother voting, I really don’t see what the motivation is for putting barriers in the way of people who want to.
We already have enough people who vote without understanding what they are voting for ... or the consequences of their vote.
Lets ask if it's acceptable that votes are bought by lies.
I can't claim to be an expert on 16-18yr olds but lets say I say my policy is "if I win then all 16-18yr old will get a free <whatever is the newest smartphone> and "I will limit the praice on cool trainers to a maximum of "£20" even for ones cost £500 now.
I don't need to have any intention of actually doing this... any more than "no border in the Irish Sea"
What did the kids learn ? Their vote is pointless (they were never going to cut all lessons and just watch movies or for that matter instigate ice cream at lunch permanently) - Even the one sensible suggestion (rain shelter) was as far as I understand ignored.
The idea that it’s some sort of important privilege is really bizarre. It’s a minor inconvenience at best, that brings zero chance of any benefit for a large majority of voters.
I don't disagree ... indeed I'd go further and say it's a responsibility.
The thing is I'm not in anyway convinced that for example giving the most easily swayed a bunch of lies to get their vote even if it means they vote for the candidate I would have and would have been pointless without is a good thing. If for no other thing than that candidate is no longer the one I would want to vote for... its actually made it even MORE pointless.
16 yr olds voted in the scottish independence referendum. The level of political debate was suprisingly high and thoughtful
16 yr olds now have a vote in all Scottish only elections. You are treated as an adult at 16 in Scotland. YOu can fight for your country at 17 but not be allowed a vote? absurd. You can leave home, get married without your parents consent at 16. But not be allowed to vote? Daft
Surely you aren’t suggesting pre-school kids should vote
Of course not. I made it very clear what I meant. This argument gets trotted out time and time again. It's meaningless.
The thing is I’m not in anyway convinced that for example giving the most easily swayed a bunch of lies to get their vote even if it means they vote for the candidate I would have and would have been pointless without is a good thing.
And your evidence that 20 year olds are more easily swayed than 65 year olds?
Or are you pre-judging the issue?
I am unconvinced that a 65 year old has 65 years of experience (many have a handful of years of experience repeated many times) or that experience in the absence of intelligence, relevant (note relevant) education and the emotional maturity to use it to make sensible judgments has much value.
Interestingly I used the term emotional maturity - not sure that develops much with age beyond 18-20.
“if I win then all 16-18yr old will get a free <whatever is the newest smartphone>
Education (and not just at Further Education level) increasingly relies on having a recent handset, and a decent amount of data available. Perhaps ensuring all kids, that are expected by the education system to have such things, do have these things, might actually be a good policy.
“I will limit the praice on cool trainers to a maximum of “£20” even for ones cost £500 now.
Interesting. But they might be more interested in rent price controls than clothing price controls, as they look forward to their next steps in life.
those who want to see VAT on food reduced because they are unable to feed themselves/family
Yeah, kids... they don't know anything, do they.
And your evidence that 20 year olds are more easily swayed than 65 year olds?
Or are you pre-judging the issue?
I am unconvinced that a 65 year old has 65 years of experience (many have a handful of years of experience repeated many times) or that experience in the absence of intelligence, relevant (note relevant) education and the emotional maturity to use it to make sensible judgments has much value.
Interestingly I used the term emotional maturity – not sure that develops much with age beyond 18-20.
I'm not 65 quite yet... and I'm not sure where you are getting 20 from either?
What I can say is my long term thoughts and plans were far less developed at 20 than they were at 30 and 40
At 20 my long term plans were girls and getting through exams ... the idea of a pension hadn't even crossed my mind.
By 30 I was still not really thinking about pensions but by 40 the idea of planning for retirement started to become important and by 55 I rather wish I'd thought of this at 20.
At 20 I'd have been more easily swayed by an increase in student grants or subsidised beer at the SU even if this then got taken off my pension...
With the benefit of hindsight I can see I and most of my fellow students were easily swayed by short term gratification over long term planning
The level of political debate was suprisingly high and thoughtful
On telly, maybe, but the people who go on telly are the politically engaged ones. If Cambridge Analytica taught us anything it's that you don't know about what you don't see.
The average voter is thick, uninterested, largely ignorant of the issues that have been prominent in the national media, let alone those that haven’t.
Agree. So what is the answer, don't let them vote?
If there was an intelligence/political understanding test it would be interesting to see how the vote would change. What if the outcome was similar and the more intelligent people also favoured a tory government?
No molgrips - in actuality. I followed the debate closely. did you?
With the benefit of hindsight I can see I and most of my fellow students were easily swayed by short term gratification over long term planning
The contrary view of this is, with their whole lives ahead of them, long term planning by our governments is exactly what many young people are insisting on, where as so many older people seem happy to go along with a "sort it out after I'm dead" approach to all the big issues. Not least climate change. Don't assume young people today are all the same as you and your peers where when you were young.
20 was the age I picked back at the start of this thread.
At 20 I was sitting my finals, intending to move to Yorkshire from Glasgow for a proper training scheme and a stable job. Within a year I was paying the maximum into my pension (and ensuring my employer did the same).
I was with an unsuitable (for me) woman, but by 22 I’d met my now wife.
Has my outlook on life changed over 30 years since then? A little (you’d hope so) but the fundamental middle class lefty, with a tendency to question things remains. And the way I’d vote now, and the way I’d judge the issues that vote was based on haven’t changed much. Possibly a little more inclined to Scottish independence, which I still dislike, but one can understand it given the performance of the Westminster government and the complete disconnect between voting patterns and supra-national aspirations north and south of Gretna.
kelvin
Education (and not just at Further Education level) increasingly relies on having a recent handset, and a decent amount of data available. Perhaps ensuring all kids, that are expected by the education system to have such things, do have these things, might actually be a good policy.
All mobile devices should be banned from schools completely.
A perfect example of why some people shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Interesting. But they might be more interested in rent price controls than clothing price controls, as they look forward to their next steps in life.
They SHOULD be but most of them won't be...
Of course not. I made it very clear what I meant. This argument gets trotted out time and time again. It’s meaningless.
It isn't clear because ALL means ALL... the point of the ad absurdum argument is point out the flaw in the narrow argument. At some point there is a line be that on age, a test or any other criteria.
16 yr olds now have a vote in all Scottish only elections. You are treated as an adult at 16 in Scotland. YOu can fight for your country at 17 but not be allowed a vote? absurd. You can leave home, get married without your parents consent at 16. But not be allowed to vote? Daft
So you can't have a full time job but are allowed to vote?
and technically
Once a child turns 16, under education law they are no longer ‘a child’ — they
are now a ‘young person’.
All mobile devices should be banned from schools completely.
Education doesn't end at the school/college gates, and you don't live in the modern world. Young people do. And we should support them. We might support them more if more of them could vote.
A perfect example of why some people shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Harsh. Despite your ignorance I still think you should be allowed to vote.
It isn’t clear
I was clear. When given your National Insurance number you should also be given the vote. Not sure how I could be any clearer. Nothing to do with giving pre-school kids the vote. That's just an often repeated empty argument. It means nothing at all.
No molgrips – in actuality. I followed the debate closely. did you?
I'm saying that not everyone gets involved in political debate, so the ones you see doing so are a self-selecting sample and not representative of all of a particular age group.
You have a point Molgrips, as otherwise we’d assume all old folk were much the same as Farage.
It is true, and it’s true of the young and old.
Molgrips - I did not say that and I ask what evidence you have that your claim is true?
What I actually said is :
16 yr olds voted in the scottish independence referendum. The level of political debate was suprisingly high and thoughtful
That makes no claim about how many where involved. Just that the 16 and 17yr olds contribution to the debate was more thoughtful and the amount of engagement was higher than many myself included thought
Note even the scottish tories support the voting at 16.
Education doesn’t end at the school/college gates, and you don’t live in the modern world. Young people do.
There is no such thing as "the modern world" simply definitions and forcing people to do things they don't want to do and normalising unreasonable behaviour as "you don't live in the modern world" as if that is a bad thing.
I used to live in a modern world... one where my boss would phone me at midnight asking why I hadn't replied to the email telling me to do 6 hours work before 0700 the next morning.
I live in the modern world where my son's teachers post homework at 10PM
I live in a modern world where some App is used discouraging children to show working
And we should support them.
I am hence why I support a blanket ban of all phones and mobile devices across ALL schools.
We might support them more if more of them could vote.
Vote for whom? The Apple supported party or the Android/Google one or the MS one?
Most of the time this "modern world" isn't adding anything ... and often it's taking away.
I'm told missing a single day of school will affect his entire education but as an "Apple Ambassador" at school he misses countless classes and is being taught to work for free.
Guess what Apple gives money and devices to the school so it doesn't matter how good or poor an App is it's gotta run on IOS.
He's being conditioned to accept homework given at 10PM ... and to feel a need to check his phone for new homework. "I'll post it on Edulink later" so then he feels he has to keep checking Edulink ..
Out of all his teachers only one (maths) gives any proper description of homework. (email below):
She also sent a complete list of all topics...
I am attaching your revision list for the year 8 exams. I have copied parents in to this email as I know I have found it useful to be able to see what my daughter is doing for her exams. You have your notes from Showbie for each topic and I am available to help with any topics you might want to discuss.
He still gets questions incorrect due to the inability to show working but the teacher is forced to use the Edulink and Showbie apps. Other homework is often "do some stuff and take a photo and upload it" and split across several apps.
It's usual hardly anyone knows what the homework actually is... there are frequent group chats asking if anyone understands what they are being asked to do.
You may think that conditioning kids to expect work to be given to them 24x7 and living with a phone by the bed is positive, I don't.
We are simply creating a generation expected to be on the beck and call of employers 24x7.
I'd rather see mobile devices blanket banned homework given out before the end of the school day
igm
20 was the age I picked back at the start of this thread.
Fair enough ... to which I guess its partly crossed wires.
Fundamentally there is a threshold at which people can vote, be that age or something else.
I guess with driving we do potentially take that away or potentially do at a certain age.
To some extent we could reduce voting weight with age but then its different in that we don't get initially tested to vote but do to drive.
People of all ages may be incapable of driving safely but above 70 they must reapply every 3 years.
People of all ages may be incapable of VOTING safely but how do we assess that and take it away?
If we did set a threshold similar to a British Citizenship (Life in the UK) test I wonder how many people would pass at all or for that matter take it if optional.
What would we even ask? Is it realistic or do we expect people to name specific celebrities (like life in the UK? except instead of singers or olympians it's past home secretaries and chancellors? Or should we ask how many seats there are or what is the speakers role?
The more I see of our "democracy" the more I feel like any true test would just put people off voting anyway... "What is the penalty for a prime minister lying to the electorate?" .. is there any point voting in a safe constituency? etc. etc.
My original thinking was more about the consequences for the young lasting longer than capability.
For example (to pick a recent example) is is reasonable that someone who has to live with Brexit (good or bad) is listened to in the same way that someone who has to live with it for 50 years or so.
And given that only the over 65s now have a majority that think it was a good idea, we end up in a situation (huge generalisation warning) where only those who don’t really have to live with it want it.
Now one could argue that the reason politicians pander to the old, is because the old actually vote. But that’s always going to be the case when the young look at political offerings, see absolutely nothing for them and wonder why on earth they should vote.
Perhaps the idea of weighting votes accordingly to how much life someone has ahead of them (and I’m using age as a proxy, because otherwise it gets really messy) should only apply to once in a lifetime votes.
Perhaps not.
But if we don’t get something in place to encourage politicians to do something for the young, we will continue to have a disinterested electorate because habits learnt young stick.
What was the quote? Give me a child until he is seven and I’ll show you the man.
Aristotle perhaps reckoned in many ways we don’t grow older and wiser - just older.