Baby Boomers: Generation Theft?

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

In defence of us youngsters the political situation in this country has become even less viable over the last 20 years. Demo-graphic change now means that even ignoring the % of voters by age group the influence of 18-35 voters (for example) vs 58-75 voters has shifted considerably.

I went to the protests against tuition fees and look what the massive numbers there achieved.

The closest thing to a youth friendly party, the Lib Dems, could well self-destruct at the next election and chances of us getting another chance to implement voting reform are slim. This means we're effectively stuck in a 2-3 party system, especially at the local level with parties continuing to represent traditional voter values (as shown clearly by the majority of Torys voting against gay marriage last night).

I'm seriously considering voting Labour at the next election just because they would extend the vote to 16-17 year olds; however even if I did it's a waste of time because our constituency is so completely dominated by the right that the biggest threat to the conservatives is likely to be UKIP

In what way is the political system 'less viable'?

What exactly is wrong with changes in demographics being reflected in voting patterns ... I consider this as democracy.

If electors choose to vote for the three major parties why is that wrong?

The proposed change to the voting system was defeated by a large majority. Why do you reject the democratic wish of the people?

And do remember that lots of research shows that young people of 16/17 tend to be very reactionary.

ukcarper

grizzly1911 wrote: »

If every pensioner who requested to rehomed to avoid this "poll tax" there would not be enough properties to put them in.

For many a move at their time of life to an unsuitable property elsewhere would have health and mental impacts on many.

They will be often be part of the community and "supported" in part by other members of that community. Moving them may well increase "care" costs.

If there is a chance to move someone fair enough but on the cut off date for benefit changes the elderly can't all be shuffled into the ideal property. It doesn't work like that.

I feel more for younger people who are stuck in inappropriate properties, because there isn't something appropriate, who will also get stung through no fault of their own. Single people in 3 bed high rise flats that nobody else will accept.

As you say bit like putting cart before horse as this only applies to council and housing properties where are the pensioners going to go it won't do anything to help with the lack of affordable housing.

My mum moved to a housing association 1 bed flat on a estate specifically for pensioners and there is no shortage of people wanting to downsize into them.

ash28

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Another point the comments section touches on is business, and it's role.

In 1955, an authors day left school and started straight away in a job with on site training.

In 1979, aged 18, the author applied for 7 jobs and got offered 6, all with formal training.

Today, there is no on the job training. You are expected to turn up with all the qualifications AND experience, which is impossible.

Theres a sligth increase in apprentiships, and this is something I am personally involved in, however, it's whole purpose is to benefit the business, with grants and poverty spec wages (not even 3 quid an hour).

The jobs market, and employers have certainly turned into a very unforgiving landscape, hence why people now have so much debt before they even start.

Again, this isn't the baby boomers fault, but does highlight an issue that should be tackled and highlights a difference in how things were then and now.

Apprentices have always been paid peanuts, when I was a youngster in the 1970s an apprentice got about £2 a week, apprenticeships lasted 5/6 years - though they did get pay increases as they went through their apprenticeship and once they had finished their apprenticeship a lot of them went onto "improvers" pay. So not even a full wage then either.

Some big companies have de-skilled jobs. BT is one of them - if you were a BT engineer at one time you could do all of the jobs, from installing a telephone to the pole work. Not now.

They have someone who to dig a trench, and somone will take the cable to the outside of your house, then someone else who will put the cable from your garden to the inside of the house. And then someone will come back and fill in the trench. People are trained to do one aspect of what used to be one man's job.

The price of progress.

StevieJ

StevieJ wrote: »

I think it the current Govt who have most interest in seeing this play out, a typical divide and conquer play

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/7012544/Baby-boomer-generation-have-failed-their-children-David-Willetts-says.html

Drip, drip. This is quite cleverly wrapped up as an attack on the govt. No mention of the fact that means testing of certain benefits would not be financially productive.

It accounted for 28.5% of all spending in 2010-11. By 2017-18 that is expected to have risen to 32.5%. Due, in part, to the coalition's determination to protect them, pensioner benefits will account for well over half of that total. As the report points out, barely 25% of those benefits are means tested, compared with 80% of benefits for people of working age.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21322701

GeorgeHowell

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sorry george. Not sure it was vitirol, but I've just included a scenario with the disabled.

Might have put a noose around my neck in doing so too, but genuinly haven't seen anyone able to explain it.

I agree with what you said on that, GD. But reserved "Mother & Child" spaces p**s me off more !

GeorgeHowell

StevieJ wrote: »

I think it the current Govt who have most interest in seeing this play out, a typical divide and conquer play

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/7012544/Baby-boomer-generation-have-failed-their-children-David-Willetts-says.html

I'm not sure to what extent Willetts represents the view of the coalition government on this, but he is an off-the-wall individual who should not be taken too seriously.

grizzly1911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

All of this effects those below 65 too though.

I genuinely can not see why pensioners are being ring fenced from every change.

I didmake the point about the <65s being affected even when it isn't their doing, they may simply hav ebeen placed somewhere that was unsuitable for families.

Are there any statistics to show how many bedroom hoggers there are by property type, in social housing or receiving benefit in private accommodation..

Somehow I suspect the number of people with two or more vacant bedrooms is pretty low in the >65 category. They still need to be housed somewhere and using a room as a measure is a crude way assimilating cost overall.

Remember window tax? They filled in the windows to prevent having to pay it. Perhaps they could just fill in the door way to prevent the room being usable?

One reason pensioners are "left alone" is that there is relatively few you could strip additional benefits from entirely and the cost to do so would be prohibitive to administer.

Whilst many more older people are fitter and healthier than a couple of decades ago it is an unfortunate consequence of aging that the older you are the more you start to fall apart and require help in a myriad of ways.

Giving them space allows them to continue under their own steam for much longer. Penny pinching would probably have many unforeseen adverse financial impacts to society as a result.

Mr._Pricklepants

What we need are Homeowner and renter parking spaces at shopping outlets, especially DIY stores.

A Homeowner is more likely to have to carry heavy and bulky items like powertools, bags of compost and kitchen tiles.

While a renter most likely buys a lightbulb or a new pink iphone cover.

I'm sure we can all agree on this.

Percy1983

I do question why pensioners are ring fenced in so many things...

We're all in it together... expect if you are a pensioner.

GeorgeHowell

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Just read that it's been confirmed.

Pensioners will NOT have the "bedroom tax" applied to them. Everyone else, will.



Again...why?

If pensioners are on housing benefit I don't see why they should be exempt. By the way it's not a "bedroom tax" that's just Labour propaganda. It's a reduction in benefit -- how can that be a tax ?

But it would be quite wrong to penalise pensioners who do not draw housing or other discretionary benefits for the size of their homes. That's the sort of Orwellian concept of which the hard left is so fond.