2 ricch boys

marmitepotato

Those under thirty are being shafted by the Tories. Less than half of under thirties voted.

You have the right to vote when you are 18, if you don't vote it's your own fault and no one else's. The nation has a huge debt to pay and I doubt Labour would have done anything different. Lets see what Tory changes they reverse when they get into power.......

peter_the_piper

securityguy wrote: »

Less than half of under thirties voted.

Less than half of the under thirties are eligible to vote.

securityguy

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Less than half of the under thirties are eligible to vote.

Less than half of the _eligible_ under thirties voted. Here's the turnout (of eligible voters), by age:

18-24 44%
25-34 55%
35-44 66%
45-54 69%
55-64 73%
65+ 76%

Can you see why governments are happy to shaft the young and pander to the old? There are more and more people over 65, increasing every year from now until about 2030 (the postwar baby boom saw rising numbers of births from 1945 to 1965, and those people turn 65 over the next fifteen to twenty years) and they vote. They vote in a solid block. It's unlikely those aged 45-64 will stop voting, so there will be a >70% bloc of pensioner voters for another twenty years, at least. Meanwhile, those under thirty don't and anything like the same rate, there aren't as many of them anyway, and they're too busy engaging in single-issue politics to actually have an impact.

Lets see what Tory changes (Labour) reverse when they get into power.......

Look at those demographics.

System

securityguy wrote: »

Less than half of the _eligible_ under thirties voted. Here's the turnout (of eligible voters), by age:

18-24 44%
25-34 55%
35-44 66%
45-54 69%
55-64 73%
65+ 76%

Can you see why governments are happy to shaft the young and pander to the old? There are more and more people over 65, increasing every year from now until about 2030 (the postwar baby boom saw rising numbers of births from 1945 to 1965, and those people turn 65 over the next fifteen to twenty years) and they vote. They vote in a solid block. It's unlikely those aged 45-64 will stop voting, so there will be a >70% bloc of pensioner voters for another twenty years, at least. Meanwhile, those under thirty don't and anything like the same rate, there aren't as many of them anyway, and they're too busy engaging in single-issue politics to actually have an impact.



Look at those demographics.

Percentages mean nothing. For votes you need actual numbers.

I would not be surprised if 44% of 18-24 year old's is actually a higher number of votes than 76% of 65+.

securityguy

goater78 wrote: »

Percentages mean nothing. For votes you need actual numbers.

I would not be surprised if 44% of 18-24 year old's is actually a higher number of votes than 76% of 65+.

Prepare to be surprised. 16.6% of the population are aged 65+. 13.1% of the population are aged 15--24, so less than 10% are aged 18-24. 0.76*16.6=12.6% of votes cast. 0.44*10 = 4.4% of votes cast. So the over 65s are a voting bloc of three times the power, as compared to those aged 18-24. The number of people turning 18 drops by 20% over the next ten years (falling birthrate 1995-2004). The number of people turning 65 rises by about 20% over the next fifteen years (massively rising birthrate 1948-1964).

somethingcorporate

OP, do you want some salt and vinegar for those massive chips on your shoulders?

It's a perfectly rational and logical approach.

If you have to pay for the house you get what you can afford. Why should this not be even more so the case for those that are either paying nothing or being hugely subsidised by the state? If you want a bigger place then pay for it like those of us working in the real world have to.

I think you will find it is your beloved labour responsible for and perpetuating a lot of the issues you now have with the conservatives. They bankrupted the country on a burgeoning welfare state to buy votes to cling on to power. Unfortunately some realists have to come in and balance the books because sure as hell Brown and Blair had absolutely no clue what they were doing.

greektony

If someone here could put across a pertinent argument as to why someone who may have never worked in their life or contributed in any meaningful way to society other than being a burden on benefits should be entitled to a house much larger than they need I would be most grateful, as I cannot imagine any rebuff other than Labour hoping for some guaranteed votes.

Why should I for example have to work 5 days a week with a 4 hour commute every day to help pay for a small flat not in an area I want to live or grew up in when a proportion of my taxes are then being spent on some lazy layabout who has no interest in ever been an asset to society getting a subsidised house beyond what they need?

Someone please enlighten me. As others have said I do not think these changes should impact the elderly or severely disabled

Ionkontrol

Gilbert2 wrote: »

Sorry OP, I disagree.

If you are a tenant in social housing then I don't believe anybody should have more rooms than they need.

It isn't your house to seemingly make an ownership claim of it.

Who decides the 'need'?

http://birminghamagainstthecuts.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/bedroom-tax-discretionary-housing-payment-fund-blow-for-birmingham/

Fire_Fox

securityguy wrote: »

Less than half of the _eligible_ under thirties voted. Here's the turnout (of eligible voters), by age:

18-24 44%
25-34 55%
35-44 66%
45-54 69%
55-64 73%
65+ 76%

Can you see why governments are happy to shaft the young and pander to the old? There are more and more people over 65, increasing every year from now until about 2030 (the postwar baby boom saw rising numbers of births from 1945 to 1965, and those people turn 65 over the next fifteen to twenty years) and they vote. They vote in a solid block. It's unlikely those aged 45-64 will stop voting, so there will be a >70% bloc of pensioner voters for another twenty years, at least. Meanwhile, those under thirty don't and anything like the same rate, there aren't as many of them anyway, and they're too busy engaging in single-issue politics to actually have an impact.

Look at those demographics.

As always people need to take responsibility for their own actions, if a community doesn't bother to vote they are at much higher risk of being shafted. In some parts of the UK young people went out in their droves in the last national election, so there were massive queues at the polling stations.

It's believed the votes of the younger age groups in the US had a strong impact on their last two presidential elections, and will even more in the future because the ethnic mix is shifting away from white Republicans. Surprises can happen here too: a landslide by election victory over in Bradford for white independent MP George Galloway when Asians of all ages backed him, many young people voting for the first time. If he can enthuse youngsters in just a few weeks of campaigning one has to ask why other politicians cannot.
http://www.channel4.com/news/young-muslims-defied-elders-to-vote-in-galloway
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/youth-vote-2012-turnout-exit-polls_n_2086092.html

rustyboy21

It would be interesting to know how many people each year, buy their council properties at the discounted price.

I know my mum and dad bought their house, when I was a kid for £7000, within a couple of years it was worth £80k, now it is worth £140k.

My mum lives in a 4 bed house on her own now, we have tried to get her to move into a retirement apt, as the whole of the upstairs is unused, to no avail.

I wonder how many of the buyers hold onto the property for the min required time and then sell it for a large profit? IMO, if you buy a council house at a large discount, then sell it on shortly after, then you should have to give the council first option to by and at a reduced price. Why should you make large sums out of it, when the house could be used quite nicely by another family, who require the space and accomodation.

This I feel, is why there is a massive shortage of social housing in the UK at present. The system is wrong.