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.Jun wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:23 pm 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 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.