Tory`s win Hartlepool by 6940 votes.

Andy_W said:
Your "tax" has already been spent, there is no massive pot of tax savings paying for HS2 or whatever. In fact it's overspent and now in masses of debt, having to be bailed out by the younger folk, who are typically stuck with buying houses which are 15x their yearly salary, and have no property boom to look forward to (as there's a low birth rate). Don't worry, your (and my) pension is already invested and locked away, I'm not saying take away any protections, and younger folk would not vote to take away protecting their own future and famililes.

The world (and wisdom) of someone over 70 means little to someone who is 18, especially in relation to how the UK is run. They have the more relevant wisdom of their parents, their teachers etc, and you're still allowed to talk to people?
Click to expand...
Well good luck anyway with your campaign to remove votes from pensioners, I suspect you’re not going to do well in the polls though.
 
Andy_W said:
It will never happen, it's impossible, those in those brackets vote more than anyone, but live with it less than anyone
Click to expand...
Bear in mind those of us retiring now and leaving the younger generation with huge debts, especially the Covid debt did spend our working lives paying off the war debt.
 
Ingleby_Flash said:
Bear in mind those of us retiring now and leaving the younger generation with huge debts, especially the Covid debt did spend our working lives paying off the war debt.
Click to expand...
I see your point, but the debt was accrued at a peak in 1946 (and not much more than the debt from WW1 etc), and largely paid off by the time anyone born in 1946 was 18 (old enough to vote), so in 1964 is was roughly the same level, compared to what it is now.

So maybe anyone born in 1945 can say that, for a year or so, and someone born in 1940, for 6 years, but they would be 75-80 now, so that is a partial excuse for some, but not "new" pensioners.

Someone 65 now, was born around 1955, and largely most of their tax was earned from 1975 to 2015? In that time debt went from 47% to 83%, effectively it's increased? Covid added another 17% or so onto that, which largely came from a badly managed pandemic, by the people voted in by tory voters? I don't thinkwe could have saved all that covid hit, but could maybe have saved half, although saying that, labour might have spent more on those that needed it.

There will always be war debts, who is going to be paying for the Falklands, Iraq 1&2, Afgan, or future wars? Why did we even have some of those wars, was it worth it? I fought in a few of them, looking back, there was little point.

WW2, for us, was mainly against an EU country, and there have been mo "major" wars within the EU since, but the older folk voted out of the EU for us, effectively putting us ar more risk of future wars? We've only been out 4 months and already got Scotland and NI pretty upset, and have just sent gun boats to Jersey (effectively against France), and the right-wing press seemed to like this? Weird.
 
Last edited:
Andy_W said:
It's not that I don't agree with it, it's more that it's not relevant, regardless of what that opinion is. It becomes less and less relevant every year, as the majority of people are no longer paying for/ part of the main system. They have their own opinion and will have had 47 years of their own opinion, and now why do they need a say on a system if they're not paying into it, or having to live with the main implications of their future decisions?

I would much prefer to have had more say 20 years ago, than I need in 30 years time. It's probably 10:1 more relevant.

When I get to 65 I wouldn't be voting against the younger generations wishes, it's cruel basically, let them have what they want and let them live with it. I would trust that my kids, grandkids, and those in healthcare wouldn't be trying to screw me over, even more so as everyone heads in that direction. Effectively what I'm saying is people should be more responsible for their actions, and living with those choices. Not people having to live with the actions of others, who don't have to suffer the consequences themselves.

Totally agree on FPTP, there's absolutely zero valid reason not to have this.
Click to expand...
I don't know numbers, but I would assume plenty of pensioners do pay tax Andy. I know I will. Any party that campaigned on a maifesto of robbing the over 65's of their vote would barely win a seat in a parliament. It wouldn't be popular, neither would it be right.
 
Laughing said:
I don't know numbers, but I would assume plenty of pensioners do pay tax Andy. I know I will. Any party that campaigned on a maifesto of robbing the over 65's of their vote would barely win a seat in a parliament. It wouldn't be popular, neither would it be right.
Click to expand...
Some will of course, but nowhere near the volume of those contributions of the 16-65 year olds. I'll be paying a load of tax over 65, largely due to what I do from 18-65.

I'm not saying it would happen, as it wouldn't, and nobody would stick their neck out and suggest it, but not many are against proportional representation (apart from those it keeps in power), so why shouldn't votes be proportional to those that have to deal with the consequences the most, and for by far the longest? A 75-year-old voting for brexit (or remain) might not be around in 10 years, and won't be working for 10 years, that's for sure, but in that time the 16 year old could have been working (or not working, as the case may be) through it for 10 years, and then have another 40 years of dealing with that guys mess, who checked out 40 years ago.

The theory is that everyone will have been there, in the 18-65 bracket and (nearly) everyone has to go to 65+, and (nearly) everyone has parents and grandparents in that age group, so nobody would be shafting the old folk, nobody would have the stones to suggest drastic policies against those 65+ not getting a vote, but the old folk keep voting against what the young folk want, and those too young to vote (and where their votes would likely go).

Doesn't make any sense to me, I'd much rather have more control over my own destiny throughout my working life, and would more than happily give that up when I'm past working age.
 
Last edited:
Should stop the unemployed voting too, as they're not contributing.
Anyone with a life threatening illness clearly shouldn't have a say either, they might not live to see the consequences of their vote.

Your vote should count for more if you earn more, as you pay more tax.

Restricting the franchise is an awful argument that I'm genuinely surprised somebody is sincerely making.
 
TeaCider said:
Should stop the unemployed voting too, as they're not contributing.
Anyone with a life threatening illness clearly shouldn't have a say either, they might not live to see the consequences of their vote.

Your vote should count for more if you earn more, as you pay more tax.

Restricting the franchise is an awful argument that I'm genuinely surprised somebody is sincerely making.
Click to expand...
That's not what I mean, and you know it (hopefully).

It's about having more control through the more relevant years, and less when you literally don't need it.

The nurses, teachers, doctors, bus drivers, business owners all get more of a say, and they're not likely to be voting for higher unemployment are they?

Why would people rather control more of others destiny (and not have to deal with 90% of it themselves), more than they have control of their own?
 
TeaCider said:
Your vote should count for more if you earn more, as you pay more tax.
Click to expand...
Not always the case - I pay UK corporation tax (19%), but could quite easily base my companies in Ireland for a better tax rate (12.5%)

Luckily I'm not that greedy
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
Starmer has taken full responsibility for this defeat. He's sacked Angela Rayner as party chair.
Click to expand...
When you run anything, the man at the top is ultimately responsible, but he's only as good as the team below him, the timing of the market he is in, and the opposition he faces. It takes time to get the right team, and you have to give some of that team a chance, to see how they really perform when it matters.

There's not many criticising Warnock when our strikers can't score, and we have to pick the strikers inherited from the previous fool(s).

At least Starmer admitted he was ultimately responsible, which is what a leader should do. Would you prefer it if the guy at the top slagged everyone off instead, and aired their dirty laundry in public? What good would this do? Changing things and adapting is admitting things have not been right, so things need to change. Playing the same hand, over and over will result in the same outcome.

Give it time, Corbyn had 5 years and two GE's, and did zero against the most inept tories, who were fighting each other. Starmer's had just a year, during a pandemic/ brexit exit, ie a weird year. There are 3 more years before the GE, and they're likely no going to be pretty for the tories.
 
Andy_W said:
Give it time, Corbyn had 5 years and two GE's, and did zero against the most inept tories, who were fighting each other. Starmer's had just a year, during a pandemic/ brexit exit, ie a weird year. There are 3 more years before the GE, and they're likely no going to be pretty for the tories.
Click to expand...
I don't know where you got the information that Corbyn was given more time than Starmer when he faced a leadership challenge almost immediately. As for him doing zero against May, I have never seen such a concerted effort to destroy a political figure in my life, from the newspapers, TV, the right wing of his own party and the Board of Deputies. The lies and slander that that man faced were totally off the scale.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
I don't know where you got the information that Corbyn was given more time than Starmer when he faced a leadership challenge almost immediately. As for him doing zero against May, I have never seen such a concerted effort to destroy a political figure in my life, from the newspapers, TV, the right wing of his own party and the Board of Deputies. The lies and slander that that man faced were totally off the scale.
Click to expand...
But the far left of Labour are undermining Starmer before he's even had a chance to have a GE, or get anywhere near one.

Also, they're paying absolutely zero attention to the massive vaccine success, and the effect it would have on voter numbers.
Also, they're paying absolutely zero attention to the "massive brexit success", and the effect it would have on voter numbers, it's a fallacy I know, but the voters labour lost don't think that way
They whine about "no opposition", when the people they need to win back are the exact same people saying we need to "belive in brexit", I know the latter is a fallacy, but the people who labour lost do not want to see labour and their voters going absolutely mental during a pandemic/ crisis. They expect labour to be pulling in the same direction or some other hor$eshit. It's messed up, but it's how they think.

Of course he was destroyed by the media, the media is far-right and Corbyn was further left than previous, or at least perceived that way. Did you expect him to get an easy ride?
The media are a bully, and although I hate that I have to say it, Starmer will be much less of an easy target, and at the minute I think he's largely keeping his head down on purpose. It's a messed up situation, but in order to fix it, we have to realise it is messed up. We have to stop being a target for the bully and then go after them once we have some more strength (or when they are weaker/ more vulnerable).
Blair took a beating by the media, and gets it even more now, and that's by the tories and the tory press, largely due to a war that the tories wanted and all voted for!

You need to know your voters and your enemy, and you need to know what the current makeup of the population is.
At the minute it's further right than all of the other parties seats combined, going further left is not going to be a win, it will be bigger loss. It might be morally better but morals mean nothing, when you've not yet faced reality.

The current split is temporary also, it's a fake split as we know the tories are riding the crest of their wave, and we know how crap they are and how they will start in fighting again. Just let the wave break and take the opportunities that arise, and they will.
 
Last edited:
Andy_W said:
But the far left of Labour are undermining Starmer before he's even had a chance to have a GE, or get anywhere near one.
Click to expand...
You mention that Corbyn was a big target and you are right, because the greedy politicians, the Murdoch press and the rich tax dodgers saw him as a threat. However, the right of his own party including Starmer also set their sights on him and helped in the destruction, actively working to lose two elections. Now these very same people are purging the party of left wing members, whilst simultaneously decrying the lack of support from the people they purge. It's laughable. Starmer has absolutely no skill as a politician and Labour party are finished.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top