Boris Johnson

[fountainhall]

Why should the over 65s who have paid taxes for over 40 years and have seen many governments have any less influence than some 18 year old who might not have paid any taxes, has no clue about economic policy and might not even read anything of quality ?

If you are going to disenfranchise a part of the electorate, it is probably better to do it the other way around & cut out the younger voters.

I will steer back to my views on elections in view of the disasters we now have as leaders in the USA and the UK.

I fully understand Jun's view but stick to my own. If as I suggested - and I stress my general idea is merely that, a suggestion - the age range changes to 25 - 60, then that gets rid of the student factor and means that most in the group will be earning and paying taxes. I am also not proposing that those above 60 are disenfranchised - not at all. I only suggest that their votes count for slightly less overall than those to whom the future belongs.

I remain absolutely convinced that it was quite wrong for the Brexit vote to be decided in effect by those over 65. I can understand why those in that age group were especially dissatisfied, the more so after the austerity imposed on Britain since the financial recession of 2008. But it is perfectly clear that by the time the "benefits" of Brexit are finally delivered, a decent percentage of the over-65s in 2016 will no longer be around. And most in this group were probably swayed in large measure by what are now agreed as the lies spread by the Brexit campaigners - that Brexit wold mean £350 million more per week for the National Health Service. After all we know that in general it is the over-65s who are more likely to use the NHS service more regularly.

With our world changing at a faster rate than ever before, the way politics has traditionally been organised also has to change.

[Jun]

I only suggest that their votes count for slightly less overall than those to whom the future belongs.

If you consider only the length of time for which they will have to suffer the effects of policies, well, yes.

However, there are other factors. For instance older voters have seen more of what works and what doesn't, so are more likely to make a wise decision. Younger voters don't even tend to care enough to get out and vote. Too many of them only read what pops up on their phone and most of that isn't quality material.

Also, if you are going to start saying some people's votes should count for more, well there are many logical ways to extend such a policy.
For example, how about having votes counted in proportion to the amount of tax paid by the individual ? After all, it's their money that's been spend and we might to better if decisions are made by successful people.
The whole area is a minefield.
Also to say the votes of old people shouldn't count for much is a disgrace and is one of the anti-democratic lines pedalled by the remainers.


Going back to the topic of political leaders, there are 7 political parties with MPs in Westminster. On Tuesday 22 July, 6 out of the 7 parties had female leaders. Now down to 5 out of 7.

[Captain Kirk]

The guy is a serial liar, like Trump. The guy is racist, like Trump. The guy has no morals or ethics, like Trump. He is completely egocentric, like Trump.

What gets me upset is that enough people accept politicians who know how to tell them what they want to hear, even if the people know it's all a bunch of lies and bullshit. As long as it's what they want to hear, they seem to just disregard the rest. In my opinion that explains how so many total scums became leaders of their countries throughout history.

Even though thousands of years of this crap has been taking place, I don't see much of a difference in today's world.

Hallelujah. Folk don't care. Tax cut? Did you say tax cut? Yeah count me in.
The other one I hate is the "better than the other guy" option. Vote Hillary because Trump is worse. Nope. Vote for neither because they don't deserve my vote. I don't vote FOR someone to keep someone else from winning. If you ain't worth my vote you ain't getting it.

[Captain Kirk]

fountainhall.
We are all here for a very short period of time in the grand scheme of things. One person, one vote is what we believe in. We've gone through the period of determining who is worthy to vote already. At one time it was only the wealthy (males) who got to vote. The "lower classes" (a term I reject absolutely) fought for their right to vote and eventually won out, women then decided they should also have that right and they also won out. Now you think we should discard older folk? Ill thought out argument even though conversely I didn't vote in the Scottish referendum for that precise reason. I would demand the right to do it but for such a huge decision I just felt that my remaining time is probably quite short and therefore I should leave it to others to choose their fate. That said, now we have Boris Trump, a man I utterly despise......maybe I'd want another shot at it.

[Gaybutton]

I don't vote FOR someone to keep someone else from winning.

I used to feel that way - until Trump. My vote will go to whoever ends up running against Trump. I can't imagine a candidate who would be even worse than Trump. Since impeachment now seems highly unlikely, voting him out of office seems to be the only way there's any chance of getting rid of him. So yes, I would definitely cast a vote to keep him from winning.

As for Boris Johnson, based on what I'm reading on this topic, I don't think very many board members from the UK will shed tears if and when he's out of office too.

[fountainhall]

Now you think we should discard older folk?

I agree with virtually all Captain Kirk has said. But please note I did not say anything about "discarding" older people. After all, I am in that very category. Perhaps I have not been clear. The point I have been trying to make is that when the consequences of an action like a referendum will not be felt for some period of time, it is only right that those whom it will affect least - older voters - should not have an equal say with those whom it will very much affect for decades of their lives.

Frankly I disagree with Jun's views of younger generations. As always in such discussions, there are examples of good and bad. I just happen to have more faith in those just starting employment and those who have been in their jobs for a quarter of a century and more. I believe one reason younger people have not gone to the polls in the past is because they just believe their vote will not count. So why vote? If extended to other forms of election, this could be one way to encourage them to get out and vote.

Let's face it - something has to be done to get governments elected by a greater majority of the people. When vast swathes of the population do not vote, how can anyone argue that today's democracy actually represents the will of all the people? It doesn't. Only 58% of registered voters bothered to turn out for the 2016 US general election. 68% for the 2017 UK election - and that was the highest for many years. What of the others? If we all believe in one man one vote, why do we not copy Australia and Belgium and make voting mandatory? Surely that would provide a more acceptable result of true democracy. I really have no idea why laws have not been passed to make this happen, but I suspect existing major political parties do not want it if only because it is likely to have a much greater effect on their own ability to either remain in power or in seeking power. Then again, why not have proportional representation as in Germany? The first past the post system is hardly democratic!

Also to say the votes of old people shouldn't count for much is a disgrace and is one of the anti-democratic lines pedalled by the remainers.

I do not live in the UK and so am not up to date with what remainers and leavers have been saying. I do not see it as a disgrace - and I do not believe Boris Johnson and his band of merry men believe that either. After all, did he not say in parliament two days ago -

By 2050 it is more than possible that the United Kingdom will be the greatest and most prosperous economy in Europe – at the centre of a new network of trade deals that we have pioneered.

Why did he choose 2050? That's 31 years away. If he was so confident about the effect of Brexit, why did he not say 2025 or even 2030? Does he not have confidence in his Brexit results?

Even if he brought that forward to 2040, how many of those in the 65+ age group will still be around? With all respect to that generation, most will not be around. So why should their vote on this specific issue have equal weight?

It's only my view. I accept this differs from those of others and will just agree to differ.

[fountainhall]

Well, one member of Johnson's cabinet - an old Etonian like himself, and indeed like many former Prime Ministers and Ministers in UK history - has set about sweeping aside cobwebs. Only he has just added new cobwebs.

Believe this or not, the dreadful Jacob Rees Mogg has sent his staff a list of dos and donts. Fair enough, you might think. But these are dos and dons related to language and its usage! Huh? From now on, communications addressed to men must be addressed as XXXX XXXXX Esq. Esq. is the shortened form of the old-fashioned Esquire. You get the drift? More follows!

Among the words and phrases considered unacceptable were: “very”, “due to” and “ongoing”, as well as “equal”, “yourself” and “unacceptable”. Rees-Mogg’s aides also barred the use of “lot”, “got” and “I am pleased to learn”

. . . Other directions include a call for a double space after full stops and no comma after the word “and”.

Staff should avoid “too many ‘Is’” in their writing, Rees-Mogg’s team has ordered, and he would neither “note/understand your concerns”, nor would he welcome calls to “invest (in schools, etc)”. Moreover, the phrase “no longer fit for purpose” has been deemed no longer fit for purpose.

As in the USA, the fact checkers have been at work.

The official transcript of parliamentary proceedings, Hansard, records more than 700 instances of Rees-Mogg using one or other of the banned words or phrases.

Oh! Poor pedantic Rees Moggy.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... s-to-staff

[Jun]

Then again, why not have proportional representation as in Germany? The first past the post system is hardly democratic!

Proportional representation has some disadvantages.
Firstly, if no party has a majority, it allows small parties to hold disproportionate power, since they are needed to get a majority.

PR also allows extremist parties to gain a foothold. For example, we have PR for European Elections and the BNP has at time won seats there.
The AFD have over 90 seats in the German parliament, although to be fair I would need to check their policies to determine if they really deserve all the bad press.

[fountainhall]

Fair point. But first past the post is not democracy as most people envisage it! Is it right that the US has a President who gained 3 million votes fewer than his opponent? Who is to say what is an extremist party? I happen to agree with you, but there are extremists in almost every society. Do they not deserve at least to be heard? Is it only establishment voices that are to be heard? I happen to believe the cosy, rules-based democracy the UK and the US enjoy exists only because it suits the big parties. But it does not mean that the true choice of the people has been heard.

[Jun]

Fair point. But first past the post is not democracy as most people envisage it! Is it right that the US has a President who gained 3 million votes fewer than his opponent? Who is to say what is an extremist party? I happen to agree with you, but there are extremists in almost every society. Do they not deserve at least to be heard? Is it only establishment voices that are to be heard? I happen to believe the cosy, rules-based democracy the UK and the US enjoy exists only because it suits the big parties. But it does not mean that the true choice of the people has been heard.

Well the US have managed to contrive a "second past the post" system.

Before we Brits get too smug about the US system, in one of the Tony Blair victories, in England, the Labour party managed to get about 70 more seats than the Conservatives, despite winning about 30,000 fewer votes. Essentially that's down to Labour winning lots of constituencies with small margins and some huge Conservative margins in others. Plus constituency boundaries having not been updated to reflect population movement. I am of course referring to England only, but it still demonstrates one problem with the system.

Of course we can argue that parties like the BNP deserve to be heard. I just think we're less likely to have another Hitler if the system makes it more difficult for extreme socialist or faschist policies to get a foothold.

Whilst we are at it, I think the idea of party members electing their leaders might be democratic, but it's worse than MPs doing the electing. MPs look after their own interests, so would pick an "electable" leader. That would have ruled out Jeremy Corbyn & probably given us a more moderate choice. Instead, we have an anti-semitic extreme leftie, who wants to go around nationalising everything & still admires the regime in Venezuela.
I don't want a leader who seems to have gained his ideology at a young age and has learnt nothing from all the events elsewhere in the world over his 70 year life. Smart people examine the evidence and are prepared to learn from it.

Whilst I think the Conservatives are the best of a bad bunch, I just hope the Liberals get their act together ready for when the electorate next want a change.