|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 18, 2017 10:08:05 GMT
In recent years I have come to these opinions on a number of topics: Should voting be compulsory? : YES Should there be a "none of the above" box? : YES If the number of votes for "none of the above" is greater than the vote cast for the leading candidate, should that candidate be deemed elected? : NO Should this be extended to local elections? : YES In the case of unopposed returns, should a referendum be held in the ward to see if the electorate want that candidate? : YES If the referendum fails, should the ward remain empty until the next full elections? : NO (but over the course of the term, the position should be job shared every six months by someone with no political connections or council connections) I am totally opposed to all of those propositions. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 18, 2017 10:30:53 GMT
My thinking here is that I cannot see any particular reason my the current 29-38 generation should move to the right. Very few will be owner occupiers. Many are in precarious employment even if not on minimum wage zero hours contracts. They all face the prospect of working well into their 70s if not beyond because of inadequate occupational pensions that are not goining to be inflation proofed. All the evidence shows that personal debt is rising rapidly amongst a number of demographics. I see no reason why that cohort will feel more secure economically in ten years time than they do now. I have three children in that age group. Only my youngest daughter is currently an owner occupier. My son and my eldest daughter both rent and pay very dearly for accommodation. None are in what I would term secure well-paid employment. None have anything approaching an adequate pension scheme. All this is very different to my generation. We always felt financially strapped especially when moving to a larger house with higher mortgage repayments but this was a temporary situation. A lot of us were in secure well-paid employment with final salary pension provision, inflation protected in many cases. Mortgages do get paid off and cost of housing does not rise with inflation as is the case for those renting. There was every reason why many in that generation would move to the Right, in economic terms, at least. To say that this has always been the case is complete balderdash. The age gap in voting behaviour is unprecedented. Any Conservative supporter who is not concerned by this bloody well ought to be. The Conservatives have often done well because their support, in the older generation was always more likely to turn out. This seems to be rolled back somewhat in the last general election. The 'right' pitch at an aggressive form of populism could easily capture significant elements of that sector John, as could a centre right party concentrating all efforts on increasing good quality social housing and expanding employment and wage rates towards the 'bottom end' in a convincing and realistic manner. There are a lot of housing and savings assets locked up in the older generations and as this cascades downwards in will be to families that tend to be of three or fewer siblings who will from late middle age see a transformation in their economic position that may well move them into the Blue Team to protect those assets once achieved and against socialist inheritance taxation prospects of diminishing their expectations and 'entitlement'. The Conservatives need to alter their game to protection and nurturing of the elderly from whence commeth their vote, whilst massaging all younger people with expectations from grandparents and parents, and securing the goodwill of those younger with good quality social housing at subsidised rents for means tested workers, giving preference to necessary skills, professions and trades, and easing out those who can and should afford to buy their own home. The conservatives should also become the standard bearers for the low paid in full time work by severely curtailing all form of immigration and ceasing all asylum seekers who tend to damage wage rates and cause competition for scarce housing and social resources. if this policy is skilfully deployed it can win a wide swath of support from that sector and those who feel for them. In short the Conservatives must massage all remaining areas of support and spoil them whilst also segmenting the market and defining the areas where they can persuade a series of aspirational niche sectors to follow their pragmatic plans to make their lives better. and frankly leave the whole of the rest of the market alone as it is not likely to vote for them. Be far more businesslike about it all and act as if they actually want to WIN! |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,546
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 18, 2017 10:36:16 GMT
As far as youth turnout is concerned, it shouldn't be forgotten that June still saw it at fairly modest levels by historical standards. Yes it *could* fall back and Labour certainly shouldn't be complacent about this, but there is also scope for things to improve further.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Oct 18, 2017 12:04:42 GMT
The Conservatives need to alter their game to protection and nurturing of the elderly from whence commeth their vote, whilst massaging all younger people with expectations from grandparents and parents, and securing the goodwill of those younger with good quality social housing at subsidised rents for means tested workers, giving preference to necessary skills, professions and trades, and easing out those who can and should afford to buy their own home. The conservatives should also become the standard bearers for the low paid in full time work by severely curtailing all form of immigration and ceasing all asylum seekers who tend to damage wage rates and cause competition for scarce housing and social resources. if this policy is skilfully deployed it can win a wide swath of support from that sector and those who feel for them. I don't think the points I've bolded are compatible. Medical services (which are essential to protection and nurturing of the elderly) are highly dependent on immigration. Attracting "native" Brits into the low end of these careers requires considerable increases in terms and conditions, even if we stopped all new immigration tomorrow. Filling more skilled parts of this industry (Nurses, Junior Doctors) from "native" Brits requires massive increase in the number of people being trained, as well as improved terms and conditions (that many Junior Doctors earn less per hour than the shelf-stackers at Aldi, and have to work in a much more pressurised and high-stress environment does not help recruitment). And even then, it is many years before changes made today will pay off in terms of staffing. And, of course, it takes over a decade to get somebody into the highly skilled positions (consultant, GP). All of this would require additional burdens on the taxpaying young people who the latter point is supposed to be attracting. Not to mention that banning all asylum seekers would have severe repercussions in our relations with other countries, and make the party enacting it look like the "nasty party". |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Oct 18, 2017 12:24:41 GMT
Quite attracted to propositions 1-5 in combination, but cannot see how the final proposition could possibly be made to work ( who would do the choosing?). Would prefer the empty seat, on the basis (1) it might concentrate minds to come up with a solution , or (2) would give people what they wanted if that really was their preference. I would extend the empty seat principle to situation in proposition 3 Maybe not the real world, but a really exciting alternative to the present shambles. Well it is obviously nonsense but more to the point it has nothing to do with the subject of the thread which is about voting behaviour . There area already numerous thread about voting systems Are you saying there is no causal link between voting systems and voting behaviour? Maybe Harry's contribution to the thread (and my response to it) were a bit left field in terms of the theme of voting behaviour but I wouldn't accept they were totally off-topic. If you want to change voting behaviour you may need to change the context, and part of that might be to change the voting system. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 18, 2017 13:15:27 GMT
Well it is obviously nonsense but more to the point it has nothing to do with the subject of the thread which is about voting behaviour . There area already numerous thread about voting systems Are you saying there is no causal link between voting systems and voting behaviour? Maybe Harry's contribution to the thread (and my response to it) were a bit left field in terms of the theme of voting behaviour but I wouldn't accept they were totally off-topic. If you want to change voting behaviour you may need to change the context, and part of that might be to change the voting system. I'm a pretty straightforward chap and tend to say what I mean. I think the post you are quoting is clear enough without looking for any hidden meaning, but if you require it in plainer English: a) Harry's proposals are utter bollocks whether or not they have any relevance to the thread. b) they have fuck all relevance to the thread |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Oct 18, 2017 13:37:01 GMT
My thinking here is that I cannot see any particular reason my the current 29-38 generation should move to the right. Very few will be owner occupiers. Many are in precarious employment even if not on minimum wage zero hours contracts. They all face the prospect of working well into their 70s if not beyond because of inadequate occupational pensions that are not goining to be inflation proofed. All the evidence shows that personal debt is rising rapidly amongst a number of demographics. I see no reason why that cohort will feel more secure economically in ten years time than they do now. Being in said demographic myself, I am surprised at how many people are willing to understand that they pay for levels of social security, and work pensions, that they will not be entitled to have themselves- but at the same time reject the idea of fixing that, as if all pensioners are seriously impoverished. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 14,543
|
Post by john07 on Oct 18, 2017 14:20:23 GMT
My thinking here is that I cannot see any particular reason my the current 29-38 generation should move to the right. Very few will be owner occupiers. Many are in precarious employment even if not on minimum wage zero hours contracts. They all face the prospect of working well into their 70s if not beyond because of inadequate occupational pensions that are not goining to be inflation proofed. All the evidence shows that personal debt is rising rapidly amongst a number of demographics. I see no reason why that cohort will feel more secure economically in ten years time than they do now. Being in said demographic myself, I am surprised at how many people are willing to understand that they pay for levels of social security, and work pensions, that they will not be entitled to have themselves- but at the same time reject the idea of fixing that, as if all pensioners are seriously impoverished.  A lot of pensioners and most over-55s are far from impoverished. They were the ones with free University tuition and grants and now they are getting triple locked state pensions and final salary occupational pensions. The younger demographic have to repay student loans and face an uncertain future over pensions. Things are likely to get worse with inflation beginning to take off again. This will disproportionately hit the young with pensioners having triple locked state pensions and possibly inflation proofed occupational pensions. The gap will get wider if anything. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Oct 18, 2017 15:13:03 GMT
Are you saying there is no causal link between voting systems and voting behaviour? Maybe Harry's contribution to the thread (and my response to it) were a bit left field in terms of the theme of voting behaviour but I wouldn't accept they were totally off-topic. If you want to change voting behaviour you may need to change the context, and part of that might be to change the voting system. I'm a pretty straightforward chap and tend to say what I mean. I think the post you are quoting is clear enough without looking for any hidden meaning, but if you require it in plainer English: a) Harry's proposals are utter bollocks whether or not they have any relevance to the thread. b) they have fuck all relevance to the thread I didn't think there was any doubt about your viewpoint. fwiw, there certainly isn't now. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,507 
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 18, 2017 15:20:22 GMT
If the Conservative share of the vote is decimated by the 2027 election, they'd still be getting 38.1% which I think they'd have to be reasonably pleased with. Would 38% have been good pre 1970s though? No, and that is the 2 party world we are back to. I personally see the next election being not dissimilar to 66'. You may well be right with your prediction for the next election, but even in that case 38% would still almost certainly still see the Conservatives form a stronger Official Opposition bloc than they were able to after 1997, 2001 and possibly even 2005. That's what I meant by 'reasonably pleased'. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Oct 18, 2017 15:20:36 GMT
The Conservatives need to alter their game to protection and nurturing of the elderly from whence commeth their vote, whilst massaging all younger people with expectations from grandparents and parents, and securing the goodwill of those younger with good quality social housing at subsidised rents for means tested workers, giving preference to necessary skills, professions and trades, and easing out those who can and should afford to buy their own home. The conservatives should also become the standard bearers for the low paid in full time work by severely curtailing all form of immigration and ceasing all asylum seekers who tend to damage wage rates and cause competition for scarce housing and social resources. if this policy is skilfully deployed it can win a wide swath of support from that sector and those who feel for them. I don't think the points I've bolded are compatible. Medical services (which are essential to protection and nurturing of the elderly) are highly dependent on immigration. Attracting "native" Brits into the low end of these careers requires considerable increases in terms and conditions, even if we stopped all new immigration tomorrow. Filling more skilled parts of this industry (Nurses, Junior Doctors) from "native" Brits requires massive increase in the number of people being trained, as well as improved terms and conditions (that many Junior Doctors earn less per hour than the shelf-stackers at Aldi, and have to work in a much more pressurised and high-stress environment does not help recruitment). And even then, it is many years before changes made today will pay off in terms of staffing. And, of course, it takes over a decade to get somebody into the highly skilled positions (consultant, GP). All of this would require additional burdens on the taxpaying young people who the latter point is supposed to be attracting. Not to mention that banning all asylum seekers would have severe repercussions in our relations with other countries, and make the party enacting it look like the "nasty party". You have a source for that assertion? |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,507
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 18, 2017 15:26:08 GMT
I don't think the points I've bolded are compatible. Medical services (which are essential to protection and nurturing of the elderly) are highly dependent on immigration. Attracting "native" Brits into the low end of these careers requires considerable increases in terms and conditions, even if we stopped all new immigration tomorrow. Filling more skilled parts of this industry (Nurses, Junior Doctors) from "native" Brits requires massive increase in the number of people being trained, as well as improved terms and conditions (that many Junior Doctors earn less per hour than the shelf-stackers at Aldi, and have to work in a much more pressurised and high-stress environment does not help recruitment). And even then, it is many years before changes made today will pay off in terms of staffing. And, of course, it takes over a decade to get somebody into the highly skilled positions (consultant, GP). All of this would require additional burdens on the taxpaying young people who the latter point is supposed to be attracting. Not to mention that banning all asylum seekers would have severe repercussions in our relations with other countries, and make the party enacting it look like the "nasty party". You have a source for that assertion? Boogs?  |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Oct 18, 2017 16:39:09 GMT
I don't think the points I've bolded are compatible. Medical services (which are essential to protection and nurturing of the elderly) are highly dependent on immigration. Attracting "native" Brits into the low end of these careers requires considerable increases in terms and conditions, even if we stopped all new immigration tomorrow. Filling more skilled parts of this industry (Nurses, Junior Doctors) from "native" Brits requires massive increase in the number of people being trained, as well as improved terms and conditions (that many Junior Doctors earn less per hour than the shelf-stackers at Aldi, and have to work in a much more pressurised and high-stress environment does not help recruitment). And even then, it is many years before changes made today will pay off in terms of staffing. And, of course, it takes over a decade to get somebody into the highly skilled positions (consultant, GP). All of this would require additional burdens on the taxpaying young people who the latter point is supposed to be attracting. Not to mention that banning all asylum seekers would have severe repercussions in our relations with other countries, and make the party enacting it look like the "nasty party". You have a source for that assertion? That was from an assessment of how the new contract, which I understand is now in place in many areas, actually worked out according to the BMA. Though a quick search suggests that the original comparison was to Lidl, rather than Aldi. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,620
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Oct 18, 2017 17:21:09 GMT
... Medical services (which are essential to protection and nurturing of the elderly) are highly dependent on immigration. Attracting "native" Brits into the low end of these careers requires considerable increases in terms and conditions, even if we stopped all new immigration tomorrow. ... And when those immigrants get old they'll neead more cheap immigrants to look after them. And when those immigrants get old they'll need more more cheap immigrants to look after them. And when they get old we'll need more more more cheap immigants to look after them. Unless you subscribe to the naive 1950s viewpoint that they'll "go home" after working here for a while. And while this pyramid scheme is collapsing under the weight of physics, who's looking after the old people in the country we're stealing all this cheap labour from? This is the economics of Empire for the 21st century, foreign countries are just a resource pit for us to mine. |
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,924
|
Post by mondialito on Oct 18, 2017 17:50:35 GMT
A very interesting proposition with answers I broadly agree with. While I think that we should always beware 'in the know' Bubble hacks herding towards the same conclusion as jigger describes, I do think that age is increasingly a factor in our politics and would be the cause of what I sense *could* be a profound shift in our politics similar to what we had in 1979. The economic reasons that john07 and others have mentioned are a big cause of this, along with the conscious decision of Cameron and Osborne to target austerity towards the poor and the young for electoral reasons. However, the big shift could come about from Brexit, or more accurately, the form of Brexit being pursued. We know that younger generations were pro-Remain during the referendum, but that did not necessarily mean that they were going to be anti-Brexit afterwards. The actions of the government and prominent Brexiteers however, is making it the case. Whether it is mostly white Brexiteers furiously and torturously denying the link between the result and the spike in hate crime, the rhetoric accusing those who merely ask questions about the process of being 'traitors' and 'saboteurs', Theresa May's 'citizens of nowhere' comment which whether you like it or not was seen as an attack on those with multiple national identities, the treatment of EU Nationals and the rhetoric around immigration and immigrants that has accompanied it is putting off younger, more socially liberal voters who may have been able to accept the result more easily if it did not give the impression of being driven pre- and post-referendum by hostility to anyone who isn't 'One of Us'. This is before we get to the effect of the psychotic wing of the Tory Party doing all it can to push us towards 'No Deal', which will worsen living standards (a possible understatement). Young people who are more socially-liberal than their grandparents and are more likely to know someone of a different background won't just be angry at their living standards going down if Brexit is a shambles, but they will pissed at suffering for a form of Brexit designed to pull up the drawbridge. We saw this in the general election when younger voters, when faced with a choice between two parties that pledged to leave the single market and customs union, voted for the one led by someone whose instincts and previous actions are more progressive than the Tory ministers who pay lip service to the benefits of immigration yet speak of drawing up registers of foreign workers at the party conference. Am I saying that Tories should have open borders to win the young? No, but presentation is everything, and the Conservatives are currently presenting themselves as a party blinded by a dogma which young people think is hurting them for no benefit. When faced with 'No Deal' Brexit, Austerity and a structural inability to get on in life, any alternative is appealing, hence support for Corbynism. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Oct 18, 2017 17:51:09 GMT
... Medical services (which are essential to protection and nurturing of the elderly) are highly dependent on immigration. Attracting "native" Brits into the low end of these careers requires considerable increases in terms and conditions, even if we stopped all new immigration tomorrow. ... And when those immigrants get old they'll neead more cheap immigrants to look after them. And when those immigrants get old they'll need more more cheap immigrants to look after them. And when they get old we'll need more more more cheap immigants to look after them. Unless you subscribe to the naive 1950s viewpoint that they'll "go home" after working here for a while. And while this pyramid scheme is collapsing under the weight of physics, who's looking after the old people in the country we're stealing all this cheap labour from? This is the economics of Empire for the 21st century, foreign countries are just a resource pit for us to mine. I'm not saying that we shouldn't take active steps to increase the number of "native" Brits in caring industries. What I'm pointing out in my post is that clamping down on immigration is only realistic if we first put a lot of resources into making sure that the UK population is both able and willing to take on the jobs that we currently rely on immigrant labour for. In the case of healthcare work, that requires major investment from government. Which has to be paid for by the government creating money, borrowing more, increasing taxes, or cutting some other spending. Unless somebody is crazy enough to advocate involuntary euthanasia the alternative to immigration for healthcare jobs is costly and requires foresight, long-term planning, and political will on behalf of the cabinet. And looking at the current front benches... |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Oct 18, 2017 18:16:36 GMT
You have a source for that assertion? That was from an assessment of how the new contract, which I understand is now in place in many areas, actually worked out according to the BMA. Though a quick search suggests that the original comparison was to Lidl, rather than Aldi. Ah, an impeccable unbiased source.  |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Oct 18, 2017 18:30:33 GMT
You have a source for that assertion? That was from an assessment of how the new contract, which I understand is now in place in many areas, actually worked out according to the BMA. Though a quick search suggests that the original comparison was to Lidl, rather than Aldi. A quick google search suggests that to match the starting salary of a junior doctor [an unhelpful term itself] shelfstackers round here would need to work 60 hour weeks. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Oct 18, 2017 19:03:08 GMT
That was from an assessment of how the new contract, which I understand is now in place in many areas, actually worked out according to the BMA. Though a quick search suggests that the original comparison was to Lidl, rather than Aldi. A quick google search suggests that to match the starting salary of a junior doctor [an unhelpful term itself] shelfstackers round here would need to work 60 hour weeks. Oh, and in the second year of training junior doctors get an increase of c.20% etc etc etc The BMA have used starting figures which apply to a small proportion of junior doctors at the very start of their training. |
|
