I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
The interesting one will be will current pensioners have to pay this?
I'll be angry if they don't.
The real question you ought to be asking is, will the new charge be banked in some way to cover the care costs of those paying it, or will it be just like every other tax and thus deployed to lower care costs for current pensioners (or increase the threshold amount that they're allowed to leave intact in their estates if compelled to sell their homes)?
My guess is the latter. The stick bangers will be cock-a-hoop.
I would assume it would be administered by an insurance company to keep it away from HMG hands
You also are not thinking this through in regards to the ramifications
Currently if my father needed care I would agree with my work working from home and go live with him and work from there. Rather than spend the amount care homes cost.
If he has insurance then why wouldn't I just shove him in a home (I still wouldn't because I think it should be my job) but I have no doubt many will go oh sod upending my life and downrating my quality of life the old bugger has paid in for it so now he should get the benefit.
If this gets bought in I forsee a rise in oldies being crammed into care homes
You may be in that position but most are not and of course you are not able to forecast your father's care needs.
My son in law's father needs are beyond anything he could provide even thought he is working from home
Obviously it is dependent on it being care I can give being adequate that I assumed didn't need to be caveated.
The point I am trying to make is so far all we have is a vague statement and already we have people saying its good or bad despite the fact we know none of the details and as I have shown you already I think your 10£ a month estimate is at least an order of magnitude out
For clarification that was not an estimate, it was an example of the return on £10 per month per year
Which is totally useless as whether its a good idea or bad idea depends on how much people had to pay.
Would you support this if the end result was the extra tax pushed an extra million children into the living in absolute poverty bracket because of the money removed from their parents pocket for being over 40 for example?
There is no reason why those in poverty can be allowed for in the scheme
By which you mean wouldn't pay it
So thats probably all the adults in the 15.6 million odd households that recieve some sort of benefits out, pensioners out , adults under 40 out so how many are paying this again
Back of a fag packet calculation: the number of people between 40 and retirement age is around 25 million, and if you're going to let all the ones who cost more in benefits then they pay in tax off the hook then that's maybe half of those not being burdened with the extra tax. Thus, to fund a shortfall of £1bn, each of the remaining unexcluded taxpayers would need to pay an extra £80 per year. It is then merely a matter of how many multiples of that billion pounds we actually need to cover the ever-increasing future costs of b̶r̶i̶b̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶o̶d̶a̶y̶'̶s̶ ̶e̶l̶d̶e̶r̶l̶y̶ ̶v̶o̶t̶e̶r̶s̶ funding future care costs.
RE NZ 2020, the current PM & her government have perhaps the best record of any national regime for dealing with Covid. Plus opposition National Party dumped it's leader a few months ago, for a guy who made more gaffes than Joe Biden, then up and quit weeks before the general election.
IF there was FPTP, Nats might end up similar to the Progressive Conservatives of Canada in 1993 when voters punished party for sins of former PM Brian Mulroney by reducing the governing majority party to a pathetic rump of TWO seats.
Unlikely they would go as far down as the PCs as the main party to their right, New Zealand First, are polling just 2% whereas the populist right Reform Party got 18% in Canada in 1993
Liverpool 1 point short of the magic 100. And City end with a MUCH better goal difference.
Still a good season for them but perhaps a bit of the gloss has come off.
You keep pushing this line, it is absolutely absurd. 18 points ahead of second but the gloss is off because the goal difference is worse? In what universe would that be rational;?
The gloss is off because Liverpool looked like they were going to break lots of PL records and ended up breaking none. The only record they broke was their own 30 year duck in the PL.
Bless, your bitterness is wonderful.
Bless, Liverpool fans who bragged about how they were going to go unbeaten, break the 100 points record, win every home game, win the PL by a record margin now pretending it never mattered! As a City fan I have absolutely nothing to feel bitter about as far as Liverpool are concerned. Listening to their fans you' wouldn't think anyone had ever won the PL before.
We only wanted one thing, one thing alone, the title, anything else was a bonus.
I can understand the desperation to finally win the PL, let's face it it was becoming an embarrassment but you really ought to have a bit more ambition. City did it last year and both domestic cups in the same season.
A bit more ambition? Like being crowned the World's Best Club this season as well?
Current trophy cabinet: Champions of England 🏆✔ Champions of Europe 🏆✔ Champions of the World 🏆✔
I suppose we'll have to settle for only winning European and World cups instead of domestic ones we sent our youth squad out for while fighting for the World trophy.
Champions of the World is a joke frankly, it ranks along with the Charity Shield as a bit of money-making fluff and I believe your reign as Champions of Europe is about to end.
Don't be silly. A knockout competition of the world's best clubs, each Champions of their own Continent is nothing like the Charity Shield ... Or the Milk/Carling/whatever Cup.
I'd rather be World Champions than League Cup winners and fully understand forfeiting the domestic cup to win the more important one. Just like United did when they went for the global cup.
It only started in 2000 and it was then not held from 2001 to 2004 due largely to the collapse of FIFA's marketing partner which gives a pretty good indication of what it's all about. It's a promotional but of fluff to line FIFAs coffers. It's about on a par with the pre-season club tournaments.
According to Wikipedia "it struggles to attract interest in most of Europe".
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university than any previous generation did. Far more women also have professional careers too whereas previous generations were more likely to be housewives, hence higher childcare costs.
Paying more in national insurance as you get closer to retirement to fund social care is inevitable
No party in British history has ever got 60% of the vote in a general election. Baldwin came closest with 56% in 1931 (although the parties forming the a National Government got 67% overall).
But I think I’m right in saying Labour did have scores of over 60% in opinion polls in late 1997.
That seem's unlikely to me and after a slight look-see on the internet I'm inclined to think you're wrong. 1832 for example?
You can’t make meaningful comparisons before 1867 - arguably, 1885 - because so many seats were uncontested. Over half in 1832, for example. That skews the vote to a very great extent.
You also can’t make meaningful comparisons because ‘parties’ as we understand them didn’t exist until 1846. However, the internet doesn’t understand that. For example, Wikipedia will earnestly assure you that in the election of April 1859 the Liberals won 65% of the vote, but the Liberals didn’t actually exist until June 1859.
So I am quite content with my comment. Majority votes are very rare in our system, and votes of over 60% for one party are unheard of.
If you're going to mess about with the facts then anything could be said. You're slightly wrong in the facts, it changes nothing about what you've said. and you should just correct it. I think it actually improves your argument that even in the 1800s it was generally the case too.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
On this 40+ care home policy, what are the views of people turning 40? If you're much older you won't feel the full (or much) the full brunt of this. I wonder how you feel if you're just turning 40 and about to be (possibly) hit with a larger tax.
In general I support the policy, just wondering how those around that age feel. What's the proportion of them voting Tory?
No party in British history has ever got 60% of the vote in a general election. Baldwin came closest with 56% in 1931 (although the parties forming the a National Government got 67% overall).
But I think I’m right in saying Labour did have scores of over 60% in opinion polls in late 1997.
That seem's unlikely to me and after a slight look-see on the internet I'm inclined to think you're wrong. 1832 for example?
Yes, the Whigs got 67% in 1832 and the Tories 29% in the worst Tory result in British history in terms of the national popular vote
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
On this 40+ care home policy, what are the views of people turning 40? If you're much older you won't feel the full (or much) the full brunt of this. I wonder how you feel if you're just turning 40 and about to be (possibly) hit with a larger tax.
In general I support the policy, just wondering how those around that age feel. What's the proportion of them voting Tory?
IIRC the age at which more people voted Tory than Labour declined from 40 to 39 at the last election compared to 2017.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
The interesting one will be will current pensioners have to pay this?
I have no problem paying it to be honest, it will be a lot cheaper than paying for care
I would doubt that you'd have to. Whacking pensioners is pretty much taboo. The middle aged, not so much.
Maybe but fairness would require everyone over 40 to contribute plus the insurance pot more than probably requires it
No, it's time for pensioners to pay for the cost of care. Honestly it's this kind of stuff that makes me want to move back to Zurich and take up my option of Swiss citizenship (by marriage). Our pensioners have got to be the most selfish generation ever (though not you personally) nowhere near the self sacrifice of their parents who fought for our freedom, bought all the property and rinse the generations below them for rent and resent any moves to raise taxes on them for care and healthcare costs which they benefit from the most. It's the kind of thing that could make someone vote Labour.
Yeah they really are the absolute worst. Although I reckon Millennials will turn into a bunch of vile selfish reactionaries when they get old too. Meanwhile us unassuming Gen-Xers just get on with our lives, paying our taxes, raising our kids and keeping our heads down, wishing the Boomers hadn't saddled us with Boris Johnson and Brexit and wondering what kind of nonsense the Millennials will start spouting next.
As a Millennial child of Boomer parents, I think Gen-Xers are the luckiest generation of all. They had free university education and have had the luxury of ultra-low interest rates after they got on the property ladder.
I think you ned to actually go and learn some history. You have very conveniently forgotten the high interest rates and negative equity of the late 80s when many Gen-Xrs were trying to get on the property ladder. I was lucky and could just about scrape together enough for a deposit but that was only because I was doing a job no other bugger would want to do. Certainly not any of the poor, scared, self absorbed Millennials of today.
The people who I think have had it best (so far!) are those who were coming of age during the 1990s.
The point being that thee labels are pretty much meaningless. All 'generations' have had rough and smooth. Many Boomers bore the brunt of the mass unemployment and changes in working practices of the 1980s and wouldn't thank you for saying they 'had it easy'. Same goes for the early Gen-Xrs as you say.
In every generation there are those who sit around and moan about how hard it is and those who do something about it. I have just turned 55 and have never been out of work in my life. Now some of that is luck but most of it is because I have had to do a whole load of really shit jobs to achieve that record. And to actually get ahead I have had to make sure I always pick the jobs and the locations others don't want to do - the ones that pay the extra danger money or the higher day rates because no one else is stupid enough to do them.
No party in British history has ever got 60% of the vote in a general election. Baldwin came closest with 56% in 1931 (although the parties forming the a National Government got 67% overall).
But I think I’m right in saying Labour did have scores of over 60% in opinion polls in late 1997.
That seem's unlikely to me and after a slight look-see on the internet I'm inclined to think you're wrong. 1832 for example?
Yes, the Whigs got 67% in 1832 and the Tories 29% in the worst Tory result in British history in terms of the national popular vote
Less than 900,000 people voted in that election...
All indications (historically speaking) are that large majority of non-voters were also pro-Whig in 1832.
Worst US major-party popular vote share in US was 1924 when Democrats under nominee John W. Davis (only nominee ever from West Virginia) garnered just 28.8%.
Which btw was worse even that Stephen Douglas as "regular" Democrat in 1860 with 29.5%; note that Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge got 18.1% of pop vote that fateful election year.
No party in British history has ever got 60% of the vote in a general election. Baldwin came closest with 56% in 1931 (although the parties forming the a National Government got 67% overall).
But I think I’m right in saying Labour did have scores of over 60% in opinion polls in late 1997.
That seem's unlikely to me and after a slight look-see on the internet I'm inclined to think you're wrong. 1832 for example?
Yes, the Whigs got 67% in 1832 and the Tories 29% in the worst Tory result in British history in terms of the national popular vote
No party in British history has ever got 60% of the vote in a general election. Baldwin came closest with 56% in 1931 (although the parties forming the a National Government got 67% overall).
But I think I’m right in saying Labour did have scores of over 60% in opinion polls in late 1997.
That seem's unlikely to me and after a slight look-see on the internet I'm inclined to think you're wrong. 1832 for example?
You can’t make meaningful comparisons before 1867 - arguably, 1885 - because so many seats were uncontested. Over half in 1832, for example. That skews the vote to a very great extent.
You also can’t make meaningful comparisons because ‘parties’ as we understand them didn’t exist until 1846. However, the internet doesn’t understand that. For example, Wikipedia will earnestly assure you that in the election of April 1859 the Liberals won 65% of the vote, but the Liberals didn’t actually exist until June 1859.
So I am quite content with my comment. Majority votes are very rare in our system, and votes of over 60% for one party are unheard of.
If you're going to mess about with the facts then anything could be said. You're slightly wrong in the facts, it changes nothing about what you've said. and you should just correct it. I think it actually improves your argument that even in the 1800s it was generally the case too.
No, Wikipedia has not stated the facts correctly. Elections until secret balloting came in, for example, could be contested initially before a struggling candidate withdrew. At that point,the seat was uncontested. Immediately the withdrawn candidates’ (plural, because most seats were two member) votes were disallowed.
So the votes for the winning candidate are counted in the statistical returns Wikipedia are using, but not the ones for candidates who would have been included otherwise. That makes them effectively worthless for the purpose you are using them for.
But even that wasn’t true, to talk glibly of the ‘Whigs’ as a political part is anachronistic. Whigs served in the government of Lord Liverpool, and of Canning (Palmerston springs to mind). Heck, William Pitt the Younger was a Whig and he led a government now described as Tory for 19 years. So again, by saying ‘the Whigs got X percentage of the vote’ you are making a claim about them that doesn’t match the facts on the ground. They were not a party as you would understand it. They had no money, no organised system of candidate selection - they didn’t even have whips, an innovation of Peel in 1835. They were not a party, they were a loose group. The equivalent of the English, Welsh, Scottish Greens, not Labour.
It wasn’t until 1834 and the Tamworth Manifesto that recognisable parties emerged, and the then ‘Conservative Party’ has only limited continuity with the current one, which really owes its ancestry to the Protectionist party of 1846.
So again, I am comfortable with my statement. If you don’t like it, please remember the famous dictum of a scientist - ‘in every scenario there is a statement that is simple, easily understood and wrong.’
On this 40+ care home policy, what are the views of people turning 40? If you're much older you won't feel the full (or much) the full brunt of this. I wonder how you feel if you're just turning 40 and about to be (possibly) hit with a larger tax.
In general I support the policy, just wondering how those around that age feel. What's the proportion of them voting Tory?
It sounds like they are planning to increase national insurance to pay for social care rather than increasing income tax or inheritance tax or introducing a wealth tax
On this 40+ care home policy, what are the views of people turning 40? If you're much older you won't feel the full (or much) the full brunt of this. I wonder how you feel if you're just turning 40 and about to be (possibly) hit with a larger tax.
In general I support the policy, just wondering how those around that age feel. What's the proportion of them voting Tory?
I am a little bit north of 40 and would feel a lot more reassured if it became clear, through primary legislation, that this was actually an hypothecated insurance scheme to cover future care costs and not an exercise in fleecing us out of a load of cash with which to bribe today's pensioners.
I honestly can't remember if I even bothered to vote in 2019. The local Conservative MP has been in office continuously since 1992 and currently has a majority of over 18,000, so either endorsing or rejecting him is a complete waste of time and energy. However, if this had been a Con-Lab marginal I would've made sure I turned out to back the Tory last time, because Corbyn.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
The interesting one will be will current pensioners have to pay this?
I have no problem paying it to be honest, it will be a lot cheaper than paying for care
I would doubt that you'd have to. Whacking pensioners is pretty much taboo. The middle aged, not so much.
Maybe but fairness would require everyone over 40 to contribute plus the insurance pot more than probably requires it
No, it's time for pensioners to pay for the cost of care. Honestly it's this kind of stuff that makes me want to move back to Zurich and take up my option of Swiss citizenship (by marriage). Our pensioners have got to be the most selfish generation ever (though not you personally) nowhere near the self sacrifice of their parents who fought for our freedom, bought all the property and rinse the generations below them for rent and resent any moves to raise taxes on them for care and healthcare costs which they benefit from the most. It's the kind of thing that could make someone vote Labour.
Yeah they really are the absolute worst. Although I reckon Millennials will turn into a bunch of vile selfish reactionaries when they get old too. Meanwhile us unassuming Gen-Xers just get on with our lives, paying our taxes, raising our kids and keeping our heads down, wishing the Boomers hadn't saddled us with Boris Johnson and Brexit and wondering what kind of nonsense the Millennials will start spouting next.
As a Millennial child of Boomer parents, I think Gen-Xers are the luckiest generation of all. They had free university education and have had the luxury of ultra-low interest rates after they got on the property ladder.
I think you ned to actually go and learn some history. You have very conveniently forgotten the high interest rates and negative equity of the late 80s when many Gen-Xrs were trying to get on the property ladder. I was lucky and could just about scrape together enough for a deposit but that was only because I was doing a job no other bugger would want to do. Certainly not any of the poor, scared, self absorbed Millennials of today.
The people who I think have had it best (so far!) are those who were coming of age during the 1990s.
The point being that thee labels are pretty much meaningless. All 'generations' have had rough and smooth. Many Boomers bore the brunt of the mass unemployment and changes in working practices of the 1980s and wouldn't thank you for saying they 'had it easy'. Same goes for the early Gen-Xrs as you say.
In every generation there are those who sit around and moan about how hard it is and those who do something about it. I have just turned 55 and have never been out of work in my life. Now some of that is luck but most of it is because I have had to do a whole load of really shit jobs to achieve that record. And to actually get ahead I have had to make sure I always pick the jobs and the locations others don't want to do - the ones that pay the extra danger money or the higher day rates because no one else is stupid enough to do them.
Yep, my early Boomer parents had rationing as children. All I was saying was that the sweet spot seemed to be in Gen X. Thinking about what could go wrong for them I would suggest a mass collapse in private pension schemes. I'm working to the assumption that pensions Armageddon (including the public sector) will have happened long before I get close to retirement age, but it might happen at just the wrong moment for Gen X.
No party in British history has ever got 60% of the vote in a general election. Baldwin came closest with 56% in 1931 (although the parties forming the a National Government got 67% overall).
But I think I’m right in saying Labour did have scores of over 60% in opinion polls in late 1997.
That seem's unlikely to me and after a slight look-see on the internet I'm inclined to think you're wrong. 1832 for example?
Yes, the Whigs got 67% in 1832 and the Tories 29% in the worst Tory result in British history in terms of the national popular vote
Less than 900,000 people voted in that election...
All indications (historically speaking) are that large majority of non-voters were also pro-Whig in 1832.
Worst US major-party popular vote share in US was 1924 when Democrats under nominee John W. Davis (only nominee ever from West Virginia) garnered just 28.8%.
Which btw was worse even that Stephen Douglas as "regular" Democrat in 1860 with 29.5%; note that Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge got 18.1% of pop vote that fateful election year.
Although Douglas still came fourth in the electoral college, behind Lincoln, Breckinridge and Bell.
On this 40+ care home policy, what are the views of people turning 40? If you're much older you won't feel the full (or much) the full brunt of this. I wonder how you feel if you're just turning 40 and about to be (possibly) hit with a larger tax.
In general I support the policy, just wondering how those around that age feel. What's the proportion of them voting Tory?
IIRC the age at which more people voted Tory than Labour declined from 40 to 39 at the last election compared to 2017.
So depending on whether this is popular or not with that lot, it's either a big vote winner or a vote loser
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Agree 100%. It has had a double negative impact of both providing many students with useless degrees instead of practical training or apprenticeships whilst at the same time devaluing those degrees and courses which would otherwise be considered of value.
I think the Australian plans to overhaul university funding look to be exactly the thing we should be doing here.
No party in British history has ever got 60% of the vote in a general election. Baldwin came closest with 56% in 1931 (although the parties forming the a National Government got 67% overall).
But I think I’m right in saying Labour did have scores of over 60% in opinion polls in late 1997.
That seem's unlikely to me and after a slight look-see on the internet I'm inclined to think you're wrong. 1832 for example?
You can’t make meaningful comparisons before 1867 - arguably, 1885 - because so many seats were uncontested. Over half in 1832, for example. That skews the vote to a very great extent.
You also can’t make meaningful comparisons because ‘parties’ as we understand them didn’t exist until 1846. However, the internet doesn’t understand that. For example, Wikipedia will earnestly assure you that in the election of April 1859 the Liberals won 65% of the vote, but the Liberals didn’t actually exist until June 1859.
So I am quite content with my comment. Majority votes are very rare in our system, and votes of over 60% for one party are unheard of.
If you're going to mess about with the facts then anything could be said. You're slightly wrong in the facts, it changes nothing about what you've said. and you should just correct it. I think it actually improves your argument that even in the 1800s it was generally the case too.
No, Wikipedia has not stated the facts correctly. Elections until secret balloting came in, for example, could be contested initially before a struggling candidate withdrew. At that point,the seat was uncontested. Immediately the withdrawn candidates’ (plural, because most seats were two member) votes were disallowed.
So the votes for the winning candidate are counted in the statistical returns Wikipedia are using, but not the ones for candidates who would have been included otherwise. That makes them effectively worthless for the purpose you are using them for.
But even that wasn’t true, to talk glibly of the ‘Whigs’ as a political part is anachronistic. Whigs served in the government of Lord Liverpool, and of Canning (Palmerston springs to mind). Heck, William Pitt the Younger was a Whig and he led a government now described as Tory for 19 years. So again, by saying ‘the Whigs got X percentage of the vote’ you are making a claim about them that doesn’t match the facts on the ground. They were not a party as you would understand it. They had no money, no organised system of candidate selection - they didn’t even have whips, an innovation of Peel in 1835. They were not a party, they were a loose group. The equivalent of the English, Welsh, Scottish Greens, not Labour.
It wasn’t until 1834 and the Tamworth Manifesto that recognisable parties emerged, and the then ‘Conservative Party’ has only limited continuity with the current one, which really owes its ancestry to the Protectionist party of 1846.
So again, I am comfortable with my statement. If you don’t like it, please remember the famous dictum of a scientist - ‘in every scenario there is a statement that is simple, easily understood and wrong.’
Believe what you say is correct with respect to the details of voting & partisanship.
However, also think it right to say that in 1832 bulk of Whigs in & out of Parliament, voters & disfranchised, supported the pro-reform side in that year's GE. And same for the country as a whole, that year.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Agree 100%. It has had a double negative impact of both providing many students with useless degrees instead of practical training or apprenticeships whilst at the same time devaluing those degrees and courses which would otherwise be considered of value.
I think the Australian plans to overhaul university funding look to be exactly the thing we should be doing here.
I would halve the number of people going to university, cut the number of degrees, cut the costs of the remainder of degrees and increase apprenticeships.
On this 40+ care home policy, what are the views of people turning 40? If you're much older you won't feel the full (or much) the full brunt of this. I wonder how you feel if you're just turning 40 and about to be (possibly) hit with a larger tax.
In general I support the policy, just wondering how those around that age feel. What's the proportion of them voting Tory?
I am a little bit north of 40 and would feel a lot more reassured if it became clear, through primary legislation, that this was actually an hypothecated insurance scheme to cover future care costs and not an exercise in fleecing us out of a load of cash with which to bribe today's pensioners.
I honestly can't remember if I even bothered to vote in 2019. The local Conservative MP has been in office continuously since 1992 and currently has a majority of over 18,000, so either endorsing or rejecting him is a complete waste of time and energy. However, if this had been a Con-Lab marginal I would've made sure I turned out to back the Tory last time, because Corbyn.
And then a future government will see how much the fund is worth and turn it into a general tax like Labour did with NI.
On this 40+ care home policy, what are the views of people turning 40? If you're much older you won't feel the full (or much) the full brunt of this. I wonder how you feel if you're just turning 40 and about to be (possibly) hit with a larger tax.
In general I support the policy, just wondering how those around that age feel. What's the proportion of them voting Tory?
I am a little bit north of 40 and would feel a lot more reassured if it became clear, through primary legislation, that this was actually an hypothecated insurance scheme to cover future care costs and not an exercise in fleecing us out of a load of cash with which to bribe today's pensioners.
I honestly can't remember if I even bothered to vote in 2019. The local Conservative MP has been in office continuously since 1992 and currently has a majority of over 18,000, so either endorsing or rejecting him is a complete waste of time and energy. However, if this had been a Con-Lab marginal I would've made sure I turned out to back the Tory last time, because Corbyn.
What do you think of Starmer? Has he won your vote back?
So again, I am comfortable with my statement. If you don’t like it, please remember the famous dictum of a scientist - ‘in every scenario there is a statement that is simple, easily understood and wrong.’
Believe what you say is correct with respect to the details of voting & partisanship.
However, also think it right to say that in 1832 bulk of Whigs in & out of Parliament, voters & disfranchised, supported the pro-reform side in that year's GE. And same for the country as a whole, that year.
Oh, I’m in no doubt the supporters of reform had a comfortable lead. If it had been a vote on universal suffrage, it might have been an even bigger one, until people realised just how limited the reforms were.
That just can’t be said to be ‘67%’ as though it was a modern return from the ONS, nor can they be called a ‘party.’
On this 40+ care home policy, what are the views of people turning 40? If you're much older you won't feel the full (or much) the full brunt of this. I wonder how you feel if you're just turning 40 and about to be (possibly) hit with a larger tax.
In general I support the policy, just wondering how those around that age feel. What's the proportion of them voting Tory?
Regardless of the merits or not, the main problems, as with any other "solutions" implemented to long term financial problems is that they need clear cross party support. It's absolutely no good introducing long term reforms if the opposition or a future government is not likely to stick to the policy if they see political capital to be made from not doing so.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Agree 100%. It has had a double negative impact of both providing many students with useless degrees instead of practical training or apprenticeships whilst at the same time devaluing those degrees and courses which would otherwise be considered of value.
I think the Australian plans to overhaul university funding look to be exactly the thing we should be doing here.
Australia will need to handle the same drop on Chinese students we will have so a good idea, Richard.
On this 40+ care home policy, what are the views of people turning 40? If you're much older you won't feel the full (or much) the full brunt of this. I wonder how you feel if you're just turning 40 and about to be (possibly) hit with a larger tax.
In general I support the policy, just wondering how those around that age feel. What's the proportion of them voting Tory?
Regardless of the merits or not, the main problems, as with any other "solutions" implemented to long term financial problems is that they need clear cross party support. It's absolutely no good introducing long term reforms if the opposition or a future government is not likely to stick to the policy if they see political capital to be made from not doing so.
My view is Labour should support this but I think it should be a fund as opposed to a straight tax.
No party in British history has ever got 60% of the vote in a general election. Baldwin came closest with 56% in 1931 (although the parties forming the a National Government got 67% overall).
But I think I’m right in saying Labour did have scores of over 60% in opinion polls in late 1997.
That seem's unlikely to me and after a slight look-see on the internet I'm inclined to think you're wrong. 1832 for example?
Yes, the Whigs got 67% in 1832 and the Tories 29% in the worst Tory result in British history in terms of the national popular vote
I think if Andrew Adonis had gone into local government administration and worked as clerk to Brocton Parish Council, the gain to national life, particularly in education, would have been incalculable.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Far less of an amount, far fewer of a number.
I drink far less beer.
I drink far fewer bottles of beer.
It's correct to say far less in every context, it is not incorrect. That was the main point the video was making.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Agree 100%. It has had a double negative impact of both providing many students with useless degrees instead of practical training or apprenticeships whilst at the same time devaluing those degrees and courses which would otherwise be considered of value.
I think the Australian plans to overhaul university funding look to be exactly the thing we should be doing here.
I would halve the number of people going to university, cut the number of degrees, cut the costs of the remainder of degrees and increase apprenticeships.
I would vote for you.
One of the great shames of the 50% idea from Major was that it removed the incentive for Government to fund those students doing courses that benefit our country - or at least gave them a perfect excuse to stop the funding.
This was very short sighted and damaging for the country.
On this 40+ care home policy, what are the views of people turning 40? If you're much older you won't feel the full (or much) the full brunt of this. I wonder how you feel if you're just turning 40 and about to be (possibly) hit with a larger tax.
In general I support the policy, just wondering how those around that age feel. What's the proportion of them voting Tory?
Regardless of the merits or not, the main problems, as with any other "solutions" implemented to long term financial problems is that they need clear cross party support. It's absolutely no good introducing long term reforms if the opposition or a future government is not likely to stick to the policy if they see political capital to be made from not doing so.
My view is Labour should support this but I think it should be a fund as opposed to a straight tax.
If Labour did that and required a 2/3rds majority to overturn that and pushed the age up to above 50 I'd actually be interested in voting for them. Sadly I don't believe Starmer has the balls to hit the pensioners and will pander to try and win their votes.
On the issue of handouts to oldies can anyone explain why oldies still get reduced entry cost to many sporting events, museums etc ?
I could understand it a generation or two back when there were fewer oldies and they generally had less money but why now ?
Why should a 25 year old have to pay more than a 65 year old to watch the same game when its the 65 year old who has all the wealth, no debts and has the higher income ?
No party in British history has ever got 60% of the vote in a general election. Baldwin came closest with 56% in 1931 (although the parties forming the a National Government got 67% overall).
But I think I’m right in saying Labour did have scores of over 60% in opinion polls in late 1997.
That seem's unlikely to me and after a slight look-see on the internet I'm inclined to think you're wrong. 1832 for example?
Yes, the Whigs got 67% in 1832 and the Tories 29% in the worst Tory result in British history in terms of the national popular vote
Less than 900,000 people voted in that election...
All indications (historically speaking) are that large majority of non-voters were also pro-Whig in 1832.
Worst US major-party popular vote share in US was 1924 when Democrats under nominee John W. Davis (only nominee ever from West Virginia) garnered just 28.8%.
Which btw was worse even that Stephen Douglas as "regular" Democrat in 1860 with 29.5%; note that Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge got 18.1% of pop vote that fateful election year.
Although Douglas still came fourth in the electoral college, behind Lincoln, Breckinridge and Bell.
Yes, because Douglas won a lot of votes in states he ended up losing. For example, he garnered 312k in NY, 187k in Ohio, 160k in IL, 116k in IN and lost all four.
Incidentally, in their home state, Honest Abe only carried IL against the Little Giant by +12k votes out of 340k total cast.
On this 40+ care home policy, what are the views of people turning 40? If you're much older you won't feel the full (or much) the full brunt of this. I wonder how you feel if you're just turning 40 and about to be (possibly) hit with a larger tax.
In general I support the policy, just wondering how those around that age feel. What's the proportion of them voting Tory?
Regardless of the merits or not, the main problems, as with any other "solutions" implemented to long term financial problems is that they need clear cross party support. It's absolutely no good introducing long term reforms if the opposition or a future government is not likely to stick to the policy if they see political capital to be made from not doing so.
My view is Labour should support this but I think it should be a fund as opposed to a straight tax.
If Labour did that and required a 2/3rds majority to overturn that and pushed the age up to above 50 I'd actually be interested in voting for them. Sadly I don't believe Starmer has the balls to hit the pensioners and will pander to try and win their votes.
Isn't a 2/3rds majority irrelevant as the last election proved? A simple bill can bypass any majority that is required.
On the issue of handouts to oldies can anyone explain why oldies still get reduced entry cost to many sporting events, museums etc ?
I could understand it a generation or two back when there were fewer oldies and they generally had less money but why now ?
Why should a 25 year old have to pay more than a 65 year old to watch the same game when its the 65 year old who has all the wealth, no debts and has the higher income ?
I’m dubious about that last point as a generalisation. How many elderly widows are surviving on the basic state pension because they worked in the home and their husband’s pension made no provision for them?
On the issue of handouts to oldies can anyone explain why oldies still get reduced entry cost to many sporting events, museums etc ?
I could understand it a generation or two back when there were fewer oldies and they generally had less money but why now ?
Why should a 25 year old have to pay more than a 65 year old to watch the same game when its the 65 year old who has all the wealth, no debts and has the higher income ?
Why do they all get free TV licenses (or they did)?
Why do young people not deserve them? The truth is neither do, in my view.
The young in this country get absolutely shafted, they get absolutely fuck all from the Tories.
On the issue of handouts to oldies can anyone explain why oldies still get reduced entry cost to many sporting events, museums etc ?
I could understand it a generation or two back when there were fewer oldies and they generally had less money but why now ?
Why should a 25 year old have to pay more than a 65 year old to watch the same game when its the 65 year old who has all the wealth, no debts and has the higher income ?
No party in British history has ever got 60% of the vote in a general election. Baldwin came closest with 56% in 1931 (although the parties forming the a National Government got 67% overall).
But I think I’m right in saying Labour did have scores of over 60% in opinion polls in late 1997.
That seem's unlikely to me and after a slight look-see on the internet I'm inclined to think you're wrong. 1832 for example?
Yes, the Whigs got 67% in 1832 and the Tories 29% in the worst Tory result in British history in terms of the national popular vote
Less than 900,000 people voted in that election...
All indications (historically speaking) are that large majority of non-voters were also pro-Whig in 1832.
Worst US major-party popular vote share in US was 1924 when Democrats under nominee John W. Davis (only nominee ever from West Virginia) garnered just 28.8%.
Which btw was worse even that Stephen Douglas as "regular" Democrat in 1860 with 29.5%; note that Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge got 18.1% of pop vote that fateful election year.
Although Douglas still came fourth in the electoral college, behind Lincoln, Breckinridge and Bell.
Yes, because Douglas won a lot of votes in states he ended up losing. For example, he garnered 312k in NY, 187k in Ohio, 160k in IL, 116k in IN and lost all four.
Incidentally, in their home state, Honest Abe only carried IL against the Little Giant by +12k votes out of 340k total cast.
I know.
I was trying to make a wry point about the long-standing shortcomings of the electoral college.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Agree 100%. It has had a double negative impact of both providing many students with useless degrees instead of practical training or apprenticeships whilst at the same time devaluing those degrees and courses which would otherwise be considered of value.
I think the Australian plans to overhaul university funding look to be exactly the thing we should be doing here.
I would halve the number of people going to university, cut the number of degrees, cut the costs of the remainder of degrees and increase apprenticeships.
I would vote for you.
One of the great shames of the 50% idea from Major was that it removed the incentive for Government to fund those students doing courses that benefit our country - or at least gave them a perfect excuse to stop the funding.
This was very short sighted and damaging for the country.
You haven't heard my other views yet.
I support public ownership of the railways, increases in tax on the wealthiest.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Agree 100%. It has had a double negative impact of both providing many students with useless degrees instead of practical training or apprenticeships whilst at the same time devaluing those degrees and courses which would otherwise be considered of value.
I think the Australian plans to overhaul university funding look to be exactly the thing we should be doing here.
I would halve the number of people going to university, cut the number of degrees, cut the costs of the remainder of degrees and increase apprenticeships.
I would vote for you.
One of the great shames of the 50% idea from Major was that it removed the incentive for Government to fund those students doing courses that benefit our country - or at least gave them a perfect excuse to stop the funding.
This was very short sighted and damaging for the country.
You haven't heard my other views yet.
I support public ownership of the railways, increases in tax on the wealthiest.
A 100% tax on Islington mansion owners with large legal funds? I’m listening...
On this 40+ care home policy, what are the views of people turning 40? If you're much older you won't feel the full (or much) the full brunt of this. I wonder how you feel if you're just turning 40 and about to be (possibly) hit with a larger tax.
In general I support the policy, just wondering how those around that age feel. What's the proportion of them voting Tory?
Regardless of the merits or not, the main problems, as with any other "solutions" implemented to long term financial problems is that they need clear cross party support. It's absolutely no good introducing long term reforms if the opposition or a future government is not likely to stick to the policy if they see political capital to be made from not doing so.
My view is Labour should support this but I think it should be a fund as opposed to a straight tax.
If Labour did that and required a 2/3rds majority to overturn that and pushed the age up to above 50 I'd actually be interested in voting for them. Sadly I don't believe Starmer has the balls to hit the pensioners and will pander to try and win their votes.
Isn't a 2/3rds majority irrelevant as the last election proved? A simple bill can bypass any majority that is required.
Yes, of course, however it is one of those hurdles that usually doesn't get easily breached because overturning the additional lock generates a lot more bad press than a technical change from hypothecation to general fund which would cause most people to go glassy eyed.
The truth is young people don't vote, that is why they/we get ignored.
If we actually bothered to vote, perhaps we would not be ignored.
Yet even Magic Grampa didn't do much for youth turnout, even in 2017. We like to complain but can't be bothered to vote.
My Grandmother before she died, told me that I must vote. She didn't care who it was for but that I must vote. I have never forgotten it and I never will.
On this 40+ care home policy, what are the views of people turning 40? If you're much older you won't feel the full (or much) the full brunt of this. I wonder how you feel if you're just turning 40 and about to be (possibly) hit with a larger tax.
In general I support the policy, just wondering how those around that age feel. What's the proportion of them voting Tory?
Regardless of the merits or not, the main problems, as with any other "solutions" implemented to long term financial problems is that they need clear cross party support. It's absolutely no good introducing long term reforms if the opposition or a future government is not likely to stick to the policy if they see political capital to be made from not doing so.
My view is Labour should support this but I think it should be a fund as opposed to a straight tax.
If Labour did that and required a 2/3rds majority to overturn that and pushed the age up to above 50 I'd actually be interested in voting for them. Sadly I don't believe Starmer has the balls to hit the pensioners and will pander to try and win their votes.
Isn't a 2/3rds majority irrelevant as the last election proved? A simple bill can bypass any majority that is required.
Yes, of course, however it is one of those hurdles that usually doesn't get easily breached because overturning the additional lock generates a lot more bad press than a technical change from hypothecation to general fund which would cause most people to go glassy eyed.
I agreed with the general point you were making though.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Agree 100%. It has had a double negative impact of both providing many students with useless degrees instead of practical training or apprenticeships whilst at the same time devaluing those degrees and courses which would otherwise be considered of value.
I think the Australian plans to overhaul university funding look to be exactly the thing we should be doing here.
I would halve the number of people going to university, cut the number of degrees, cut the costs of the remainder of degrees and increase apprenticeships.
I would vote for you.
One of the great shames of the 50% idea from Major was that it removed the incentive for Government to fund those students doing courses that benefit our country - or at least gave them a perfect excuse to stop the funding.
This was very short sighted and damaging for the country.
You haven't heard my other views yet.
I support public ownership of the railways, increases in tax on the wealthiest.
50% wasn't from Major, It was from Blair in 1999....
On this 40+ care home policy, what are the views of people turning 40? If you're much older you won't feel the full (or much) the full brunt of this. I wonder how you feel if you're just turning 40 and about to be (possibly) hit with a larger tax.
In general I support the policy, just wondering how those around that age feel. What's the proportion of them voting Tory?
I am a little bit north of 40 and would feel a lot more reassured if it became clear, through primary legislation, that this was actually an hypothecated insurance scheme to cover future care costs and not an exercise in fleecing us out of a load of cash with which to bribe today's pensioners.
I honestly can't remember if I even bothered to vote in 2019. The local Conservative MP has been in office continuously since 1992 and currently has a majority of over 18,000, so either endorsing or rejecting him is a complete waste of time and energy. However, if this had been a Con-Lab marginal I would've made sure I turned out to back the Tory last time, because Corbyn.
What do you think of Starmer? Has he won your vote back?
I may have voted Labour at some point during the Blair era, but I certainly haven't for a long time so it's not a case of winning it back per se. In recent elections I've gone back and forth between Tory and Lib Dem, though like I said I don't recall having felt sufficiently motivated to bother last time.
It is far too early to be making judgments concerning which side might or might not be worth backing in future. However, if further down the line I'm both completely reassured that the Far Left has been locked out of power and the Labour platform sounds sufficiently realistic and attractive then I might go and vote for it, yes. The prospect of Prime Minister Starmer certainly doesn't terrify me, which is setting the bar very low but a satisfactory start nonetheless.
On the one hand voting is a bit of a pointless exercise around here because it's very safe for the Conservatives, but on the other hand if any one party sufficiently enthused me then I might opt to turn out and show support anyway. I'm not strongly ideologically wedded to either the left or the right so my endorsement is certainly there to be won.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Agree 100%. It has had a double negative impact of both providing many students with useless degrees instead of practical training or apprenticeships whilst at the same time devaluing those degrees and courses which would otherwise be considered of value.
I think the Australian plans to overhaul university funding look to be exactly the thing we should be doing here.
I would halve the number of people going to university, cut the number of degrees, cut the costs of the remainder of degrees and increase apprenticeships.
I would vote for you.
One of the great shames of the 50% idea from Major was that it removed the incentive for Government to fund those students doing courses that benefit our country - or at least gave them a perfect excuse to stop the funding.
This was very short sighted and damaging for the country.
You haven't heard my other views yet.
I support public ownership of the railways, increases in tax on the wealthiest.
A 100% tax on Islington mansion owners with large legal funds? I’m listening...
Nobody is safe.
I would also be far more prepared to own up to my mistakes, unlike Corbyn. I've said many times I regret supporting him but at least I am honest enough to say so. I hope that counts for something.
The truth is young people don't vote, that is why they/we get ignored.
If we actually bothered to vote, perhaps we would not be ignored.
Yet even Magic Grampa didn't do much for youth turnout, even in 2017. We like to complain but can't be bothered to vote.
My Grandmother before she died, told me that I must vote. She didn't care who it was for but that I must vote. I have never forgotten it and I never will.
I'd love to see a study between voting likelihood and how much tax a person pays. I'm sure it's linked, I think that's why people start to vote in their late twenties rather than early twenties when they aren't earning a lot.
No party in British history has ever got 60% of the vote in a general election. Baldwin came closest with 56% in 1931 (although the parties forming the a National Government got 67% overall).
But I think I’m right in saying Labour did have scores of over 60% in opinion polls in late 1997.
That seem's unlikely to me and after a slight look-see on the internet I'm inclined to think you're wrong. 1832 for example?
Yes, the Whigs got 67% in 1832 and the Tories 29% in the worst Tory result in British history in terms of the national popular vote
Less than 900,000 people voted in that election...
All indications (historically speaking) are that large majority of non-voters were also pro-Whig in 1832.
Worst US major-party popular vote share in US was 1924 when Democrats under nominee John W. Davis (only nominee ever from West Virginia) garnered just 28.8%.
Which btw was worse even that Stephen Douglas as "regular" Democrat in 1860 with 29.5%; note that Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge got 18.1% of pop vote that fateful election year.
Although Douglas still came fourth in the electoral college, behind Lincoln, Breckinridge and Bell.
Yes, because Douglas won a lot of votes in states he ended up losing. For example, he garnered 312k in NY, 187k in Ohio, 160k in IL, 116k in IN and lost all four.
Incidentally, in their home state, Honest Abe only carried IL against the Little Giant by +12k votes out of 340k total cast.
I know.
I was trying to make a wry point about the long-standing shortcomings of the electoral college.
Maybe I should have explained more.
Shortcomings of Electoral College obvious - but keeping Stephen Douglas out of the White House was NOT one of them.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Agree 100%. It has had a double negative impact of both providing many students with useless degrees instead of practical training or apprenticeships whilst at the same time devaluing those degrees and courses which would otherwise be considered of value.
I think the Australian plans to overhaul university funding look to be exactly the thing we should be doing here.
I would halve the number of people going to university, cut the number of degrees, cut the costs of the remainder of degrees and increase apprenticeships.
I would vote for you.
One of the great shames of the 50% idea from Major was that it removed the incentive for Government to fund those students doing courses that benefit our country - or at least gave them a perfect excuse to stop the funding.
This was very short sighted and damaging for the country.
You haven't heard my other views yet.
I support public ownership of the railways, increases in tax on the wealthiest.
50% wasn't from Major, It was from Blair in 1999....
On the issue of handouts to oldies can anyone explain why oldies still get reduced entry cost to many sporting events, museums etc ?
I could understand it a generation or two back when there were fewer oldies and they generally had less money but why now ?
Why should a 25 year old have to pay more than a 65 year old to watch the same game when its the 65 year old who has all the wealth, no debts and has the higher income ?
Why do they all get free TV licenses (or they did)?
Why do young people not deserve them? The truth is neither do, in my view.
The young in this country get absolutely shafted, they get absolutely fuck all from the Tories.
The young will get policies they want when they vote in significant enough numbers that their desires matter.
They don't vote in significant enough numbers so their desires are ignored by politicians who focus on currying favour from older age groups who do vote.
No party in British history has ever got 60% of the vote in a general election. Baldwin came closest with 56% in 1931 (although the parties forming the a National Government got 67% overall).
But I think I’m right in saying Labour did have scores of over 60% in opinion polls in late 1997.
That seem's unlikely to me and after a slight look-see on the internet I'm inclined to think you're wrong. 1832 for example?
Yes, the Whigs got 67% in 1832 and the Tories 29% in the worst Tory result in British history in terms of the national popular vote
Less than 900,000 people voted in that election...
All indications (historically speaking) are that large majority of non-voters were also pro-Whig in 1832.
Worst US major-party popular vote share in US was 1924 when Democrats under nominee John W. Davis (only nominee ever from West Virginia) garnered just 28.8%.
Which btw was worse even that Stephen Douglas as "regular" Democrat in 1860 with 29.5%; note that Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge got 18.1% of pop vote that fateful election year.
Although Douglas still came fourth in the electoral college, behind Lincoln, Breckinridge and Bell.
Yes, because Douglas won a lot of votes in states he ended up losing. For example, he garnered 312k in NY, 187k in Ohio, 160k in IL, 116k in IN and lost all four.
Incidentally, in their home state, Honest Abe only carried IL against the Little Giant by +12k votes out of 340k total cast.
I know.
I was trying to make a wry point about the long-standing shortcomings of the electoral college.
Maybe I should have explained more.
Shortcomings of Electoral College obvious - but keeping Stephen Douglas out of the White House was NOT one of them.
Having Breckinridge come nearer on the votes of only slaveholders and traitors, however...
The truth is young people don't vote, that is why they/we get ignored.
If we actually bothered to vote, perhaps we would not be ignored.
Yet even Magic Grampa didn't do much for youth turnout, even in 2017. We like to complain but can't be bothered to vote.
My Grandmother before she died, told me that I must vote. She didn't care who it was for but that I must vote. I have never forgotten it and I never will.
I'd love to see a study between voting likelihood and how much tax a person pays. I'm sure it's linked, I think that's why people start to vote in their late twenties rather than early twenties when they aren't earning a lot.
Well that's a very interesting point. My peer group always seems to vote and always has but we also were earning well quite early on so that might be why...
On the issue of handouts to oldies can anyone explain why oldies still get reduced entry cost to many sporting events, museums etc ?
I could understand it a generation or two back when there were fewer oldies and they generally had less money but why now ?
Why should a 25 year old have to pay more than a 65 year old to watch the same game when its the 65 year old who has all the wealth, no debts and has the higher income ?
Why do they all get free TV licenses (or they did)?
Why do young people not deserve them? The truth is neither do, in my view.
The young in this country get absolutely shafted, they get absolutely fuck all from the Tories.
The young will get policies they want when they vote in significant enough numbers that their desires matter.
They don't vote in significant enough numbers so their desires are ignored by politicians who focus on currying favour from older age groups who do vote.
If you see above I noted this.
I completely agree with you, if we could be bothered we wouldn't get shafted so much.
No party in British history has ever got 60% of the vote in a general election. Baldwin came closest with 56% in 1931 (although the parties forming the a National Government got 67% overall).
But I think I’m right in saying Labour did have scores of over 60% in opinion polls in late 1997.
That seem's unlikely to me and after a slight look-see on the internet I'm inclined to think you're wrong. 1832 for example?
Yes, the Whigs got 67% in 1832 and the Tories 29% in the worst Tory result in British history in terms of the national popular vote
Useless factoid: the cafe where I went to lunch yesterday operates out of a pavillion originally opened by Shirley Williams in 1968 when she was the local MP. The commemorative plaque is still there.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Agree 100%. It has had a double negative impact of both providing many students with useless degrees instead of practical training or apprenticeships whilst at the same time devaluing those degrees and courses which would otherwise be considered of value.
I think the Australian plans to overhaul university funding look to be exactly the thing we should be doing here.
I would halve the number of people going to university, cut the number of degrees, cut the costs of the remainder of degrees and increase apprenticeships.
I would vote for you.
One of the great shames of the 50% idea from Major was that it removed the incentive for Government to fund those students doing courses that benefit our country - or at least gave them a perfect excuse to stop the funding.
This was very short sighted and damaging for the country.
You haven't heard my other views yet.
I support public ownership of the railways, increases in tax on the wealthiest.
No party in British history has ever got 60% of the vote in a general election. Baldwin came closest with 56% in 1931 (although the parties forming the a National Government got 67% overall).
But I think I’m right in saying Labour did have scores of over 60% in opinion polls in late 1997.
That seem's unlikely to me and after a slight look-see on the internet I'm inclined to think you're wrong. 1832 for example?
Yes, the Whigs got 67% in 1832 and the Tories 29% in the worst Tory result in British history in terms of the national popular vote
Less than 900,000 people voted in that election...
All indications (historically speaking) are that large majority of non-voters were also pro-Whig in 1832.
Worst US major-party popular vote share in US was 1924 when Democrats under nominee John W. Davis (only nominee ever from West Virginia) garnered just 28.8%.
Which btw was worse even that Stephen Douglas as "regular" Democrat in 1860 with 29.5%; note that Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge got 18.1% of pop vote that fateful election year.
Although Douglas still came fourth in the electoral college, behind Lincoln, Breckinridge and Bell.
Yes, because Douglas won a lot of votes in states he ended up losing. For example, he garnered 312k in NY, 187k in Ohio, 160k in IL, 116k in IN and lost all four.
Incidentally, in their home state, Honest Abe only carried IL against the Little Giant by +12k votes out of 340k total cast.
I know.
I was trying to make a wry point about the long-standing shortcomings of the electoral college.
Maybe I should have explained more.
Shortcomings of Electoral College obvious - but keeping Stephen Douglas out of the White House was NOT one of them.
Having Breckinridge come nearer on the votes of only slaveholders and traitors, however...
Re: Breckinridge, large marjority of his voters were NOT slaveholders. And a substantial minority were NOT even traitors by your definition. Unless you think there were 179k traitors in Pennsylvania in 1860.
Note PA was in fact a special case, and these were actually Breckinridge-Douglas "fusion" votes. Which shows the risk of making over-broad assumptions.
Eight workers at my local grocery store have tested positive for CV19
Didn’t you say everyone in LA was walking round in masks?
The staff have a habit of hanging around round the back smoking and chatting without masks...
Out of interest - does anyone know what's going on in the Texas/Florida at the moment? A couple of weeks ago there was a lot of chatter about Houston running out of ICU beds, but I presume people aren't dying in the streets right now or we'd be hearing about it?
Eight workers at my local grocery store have tested positive for CV19
Didn’t you say everyone in LA was walking round in masks?
The staff have a habit of hanging around round the back smoking and chatting without masks...
Out of interest - does anyone know what's going on in the Texas/Florida at the moment? A couple of weeks ago there was a lot of chatter about Houston running out of ICU beds, but I presume people aren't dying in the streets right now or we'd be hearing about it?
On the issue of handouts to oldies can anyone explain why oldies still get reduced entry cost to many sporting events, museums etc ?
I could understand it a generation or two back when there were fewer oldies and they generally had less money but why now ?
Why should a 25 year old have to pay more than a 65 year old to watch the same game when its the 65 year old who has all the wealth, no debts and has the higher income ?
Why do they all get free TV licenses (or they did)?
Why do young people not deserve them? The truth is neither do, in my view.
The young in this country get absolutely shafted, they get absolutely fuck all from the Tories.
The young will get policies they want when they vote in significant enough numbers that their desires matter.
They don't vote in significant enough numbers so their desires are ignored by politicians who focus on currying favour from older age groups who do vote.
If you see above I noted this.
I completely agree with you, if we could be bothered we wouldn't get shafted so much.
It will get worse. The country is ageing and the assumption that today's pissed-off twentysomethings won't drift, on average, further and further towards conservatism as they age - i.e. that the Tories' courting of the grey vote will eventually bite them on the arse as the current generation of pensioners dies out - is heroic.
Useless factoid: the cafe where I went to lunch yesterday operates out of a pavillion originally opened by Shirley Williams in 1968 when she was the local MP. The commemorative plaque is still there.
Yours truly once had a fine piece of pie at very small restaurant outside of Ripley WV, locally famous because John F. Kennedy stopped and also had a piece of pie while campaigning in the 1960 West Virginia Primary.
Same lady was still running the place. Showed me the stool where JFK sat at the counter. Also showed me autographed picture of her favorite president - George Herbert Walker Bush.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Agree 100%. It has had a double negative impact of both providing many students with useless degrees instead of practical training or apprenticeships whilst at the same time devaluing those degrees and courses which would otherwise be considered of value.
I think the Australian plans to overhaul university funding look to be exactly the thing we should be doing here.
I would halve the number of people going to university, cut the number of degrees, cut the costs of the remainder of degrees and increase apprenticeships.
I would vote for you.
One of the great shames of the 50% idea from Major was that it removed the incentive for Government to fund those students doing courses that benefit our country - or at least gave them a perfect excuse to stop the funding.
This was very short sighted and damaging for the country.
You haven't heard my other views yet.
I support public ownership of the railways, increases in tax on the wealthiest.
I read the other day that the Tories have formally abandoned the 50% target, to strong criticism from Labour...
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Far less of an amount, far fewer of a number.
I drink far less beer.
I drink far fewer bottles of beer.
That’s an outrageous statement.
Drinking beer from bottles? I ask you...
Well he did say he is drinking fewer so he's trying to address the issue
On the issue of handouts to oldies can anyone explain why oldies still get reduced entry cost to many sporting events, museums etc ?
I could understand it a generation or two back when there were fewer oldies and they generally had less money but why now ?
Why should a 25 year old have to pay more than a 65 year old to watch the same game when its the 65 year old who has all the wealth, no debts and has the higher income ?
Why do they all get free TV licenses (or they did)?
Why do young people not deserve them? The truth is neither do, in my view.
The young in this country get absolutely shafted, they get absolutely fuck all from the Tories.
The young will get policies they want when they vote in significant enough numbers that their desires matter.
They don't vote in significant enough numbers so their desires are ignored by politicians who focus on currying favour from older age groups who do vote.
If you see above I noted this.
I completely agree with you, if we could be bothered we wouldn't get shafted so much.
It will get worse. The country is ageing and the assumption that today's pissed-off twentysomethings won't drift, on average, further and further towards conservatism as they age - i.e. that the Tories' courting of the grey vote will eventually bite them on the arse as the current generation of pensioners dies out - is heroic.
Remember, though, that people become more conservative as they age because they start to be the people with assets and property and the like. They seek to protect the system that they are now benificiaries of.
If the 45 year olds of tomorrow have no stake in society, if they're not property owners or beginning to feel financially secure, they're not necessarily going to be in favour of policies that maintain the status quo.
No party in British history has ever got 60% of the vote in a general election. Baldwin came closest with 56% in 1931 (although the parties forming the a National Government got 67% overall).
But I think I’m right in saying Labour did have scores of over 60% in opinion polls in late 1997.
That seem's unlikely to me and after a slight look-see on the internet I'm inclined to think you're wrong. 1832 for example?
Yes, the Whigs got 67% in 1832 and the Tories 29% in the worst Tory result in British history in terms of the national popular vote
Less than 900,000 people voted in that election...
All indications (historically speaking) are that large majority of non-voters were also pro-Whig in 1832.
Worst US major-party popular vote share in US was 1924 when Democrats under nominee John W. Davis (only nominee ever from West Virginia) garnered just 28.8%.
Which btw was worse even that Stephen Douglas as "regular" Democrat in 1860 with 29.5%; note that Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge got 18.1% of pop vote that fateful election year.
Although Douglas still came fourth in the electoral college, behind Lincoln, Breckinridge and Bell.
Yes, because Douglas won a lot of votes in states he ended up losing. For example, he garnered 312k in NY, 187k in Ohio, 160k in IL, 116k in IN and lost all four.
Incidentally, in their home state, Honest Abe only carried IL against the Little Giant by +12k votes out of 340k total cast.
I know.
I was trying to make a wry point about the long-standing shortcomings of the electoral college.
Maybe I should have explained more.
Shortcomings of Electoral College obvious - but keeping Stephen Douglas out of the White House was NOT one of them.
Having Breckinridge come nearer on the votes of only slaveholders and traitors, however...
Re: Breckinridge, large marjority of his voters were NOT slaveholders. And a substantial minority were NOT even traitors by your definition. Unless you think there were 179k traitors in Pennsylvania in 1860.
Note PA was in fact a special case, and these were actually Breckinridge-Douglas "fusion" votes. Which shows the risk of making over-broad assumptions.
Perhaps I should have remembered the words of Douglas himself: ‘I do not believe every Breckinridge man is a disunionist, but I do believe every disunionist is a Breckinridge man.’
However, the Pennsylvania votes didn’t count in the end. It’s the South where his electoral votes came from.
Admittedly, there are those who argue secession was a minority view even there.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Agree 100%. It has had a double negative impact of both providing many students with useless degrees instead of practical training or apprenticeships whilst at the same time devaluing those degrees and courses which would otherwise be considered of value.
I think the Australian plans to overhaul university funding look to be exactly the thing we should be doing here.
I would halve the number of people going to university, cut the number of degrees, cut the costs of the remainder of degrees and increase apprenticeships.
I would vote for you.
One of the great shames of the 50% idea from Major was that it removed the incentive for Government to fund those students doing courses that benefit our country - or at least gave them a perfect excuse to stop the funding.
This was very short sighted and damaging for the country.
You haven't heard my other views yet.
I support public ownership of the railways, increases in tax on the wealthiest.
I read the other day that the Tories have formally abandoned the 50% target, to strong criticism from Labour...
Wasn't aware Labour had criticised it but that seems a mis-step to me.
On the issue of handouts to oldies can anyone explain why oldies still get reduced entry cost to many sporting events, museums etc ?
I could understand it a generation or two back when there were fewer oldies and they generally had less money but why now ?
Why should a 25 year old have to pay more than a 65 year old to watch the same game when its the 65 year old who has all the wealth, no debts and has the higher income ?
Why do they all get free TV licenses (or they did)?
Why do young people not deserve them? The truth is neither do, in my view.
The young in this country get absolutely shafted, they get absolutely fuck all from the Tories.
The young will get policies they want when they vote in significant enough numbers that their desires matter.
They don't vote in significant enough numbers so their desires are ignored by politicians who focus on currying favour from older age groups who do vote.
If you see above I noted this.
I completely agree with you, if we could be bothered we wouldn't get shafted so much.
It will get worse. The country is ageing and the assumption that today's pissed-off twentysomethings won't drift, on average, further and further towards conservatism as they age - i.e. that the Tories' courting of the grey vote will eventually bite them on the arse as the current generation of pensioners dies out - is heroic.
Remember, though, that people become more conservative as they age because they start to be the people with assets and property and the like. They seek to protect the system that they are now benificiaries of.
If the 45 year olds of tomorrow have no stake in society, if they're not property owners or beginning to feel financially secure, they're not necessarily going to be in favour of policies that maintain the status quo.
It's a possibility. On the other hand, unless those people are utterly destitute then they'll probably have had such a hard slog to accumulate whatever assets then do have that they could be even less willing to hand a portion of them to the state than people from the previous generation who had more to spare.
And then, of course, you finally get to retire and join the stickbanger class, after which the main objective of voting is to pick whichever side will do the best job of bleeding working taxpayers white to pay to look after you.
This, of course, is a crude oversimplification, but you get the general idea.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Far FEWER
Funny you should mention this, I was watching a video on speech today and saying far less is perfectly correct.
Who was saying that? Probably just one person´s opinion, and my opinion is probably just as good as his.
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Agree 100%. It has had a double negative impact of both providing many students with useless degrees instead of practical training or apprenticeships whilst at the same time devaluing those degrees and courses which would otherwise be considered of value.
I think the Australian plans to overhaul university funding look to be exactly the thing we should be doing here.
I would halve the number of people going to university, cut the number of degrees, cut the costs of the remainder of degrees and increase apprenticeships.
I would vote for you.
One of the great shames of the 50% idea from Major was that it removed the incentive for Government to fund those students doing courses that benefit our country - or at least gave them a perfect excuse to stop the funding.
This was very short sighted and damaging for the country.
You haven't heard my other views yet.
I support public ownership of the railways, increases in tax on the wealthiest.
A 100% tax on Islington mansion owners with large legal funds? I’m listening...
Nobody is safe.
I would also be far more prepared to own up to my mistakes, unlike Corbyn. I've said many times I regret supporting him but at least I am honest enough to say so. I hope that counts for something.
In the spirit of that, I made the mistake of voting for New Labour in 2001 because I disliked Hague, liked Blair and thought "iron Chancellor" Brown could be trusted . . .
I bet this will be introduced in a couple of years just as I turn 40 too. Student grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced just as I started university so I had to pay fees while students who'd started previously didn't. I know full well pensions by the time we retire are going to be crap too. Now this . . . I can see it happening!
They should definitely make it 50 or 55. Our generation seems to have become the most put upon, unable to buy property because our parents' generation pulled the ladder up behind them, huge childcare costs and longer living parents resulting in huge care costs.
We definitely have become the very definition of the "squeezed middle" politicians love talking about. I'm lucky to have a career that has affordede a fairly comfortable life and the chance to own my own home but loads of my friends are t so fortunate.
Our generation also inherits far more on average than any previous generation did and also far more of use went to university
It remains disputed how much ‘of use’ we are...
I'm of the view that the 50% uni target was a big mistake and far less of our lot should be going to university.
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
Agree 100%. It has had a double negative impact of both providing many students with useless degrees instead of practical training or apprenticeships whilst at the same time devaluing those degrees and courses which would otherwise be considered of value.
I think the Australian plans to overhaul university funding look to be exactly the thing we should be doing here.
I was just reading about that, it is an excellent idea and one we should fully copy over here. I also agree Blair's 50% target for university graduates was fundamentally stupid and, like many of his ideas (and actions), had very negative long-term effects (don't get me started about PPI....)
Comments
Specifically, will Labour win a majority? Methinks yes.
Paying more in national insurance as you get closer to retirement to fund social care is inevitable
In general I support the policy, just wondering how those around that age feel. What's the proportion of them voting Tory?
I agree with @MaxPB's sentiment though, our lot are getting screwed. We don't vote Tory, they offer us nothing.
In every generation there are those who sit around and moan about how hard it is and those who do something about it. I have just turned 55 and have never been out of work in my life. Now some of that is luck but most of it is because I have had to do a whole load of really shit jobs to achieve that record. And to actually get ahead I have had to make sure I always pick the jobs and the locations others don't want to do - the ones that pay the extra danger money or the higher day rates because no one else is stupid enough to do them.
Worst US major-party popular vote share in US was 1924 when Democrats under nominee John W. Davis (only nominee ever from West Virginia) garnered just 28.8%.
Which btw was worse even that Stephen Douglas as "regular" Democrat in 1860 with 29.5%; note that Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge got 18.1% of pop vote that fateful election year.
So the votes for the winning candidate are counted in the statistical returns Wikipedia are using, but not the ones for candidates who would have been included otherwise. That makes them effectively worthless for the purpose you are using them for.
But even that wasn’t true, to talk glibly of the ‘Whigs’ as a political part is anachronistic. Whigs served in the government of Lord Liverpool, and of Canning (Palmerston springs to mind). Heck, William Pitt the Younger was a Whig and he led a government now described as Tory for 19 years. So again, by saying ‘the Whigs got X percentage of the vote’ you are making a claim about them that doesn’t match the facts on the ground. They were not a party as you would understand it. They had no money, no organised system of candidate selection - they didn’t even have whips, an innovation of Peel in 1835. They were not a party, they were a loose group. The equivalent of the English, Welsh, Scottish Greens, not Labour.
It wasn’t until 1834 and the Tamworth Manifesto that recognisable parties emerged, and the then ‘Conservative Party’ has only limited continuity with the current one, which really owes its ancestry to the Protectionist party of 1846.
So again, I am comfortable with my statement. If you don’t like it, please remember the famous dictum of a scientist - ‘in every scenario there is a statement that is simple, easily understood and wrong.’
I honestly can't remember if I even bothered to vote in 2019. The local Conservative MP has been in office continuously since 1992 and currently has a majority of over 18,000, so either endorsing or rejecting him is a complete waste of time and energy. However, if this had been a Con-Lab marginal I would've made sure I turned out to back the Tory last time, because Corbyn.
Corbyn is in trouble
I think the Australian plans to overhaul university funding look to be exactly the thing we should be doing here.
However, also think it right to say that in 1832 bulk of Whigs in & out of Parliament, voters & disfranchised, supported the pro-reform side in that year's GE. And same for the country as a whole, that year.
Real tears pouring down my face.
That just can’t be said to be ‘67%’ as though it was a modern return from the ONS, nor can they be called a ‘party.’
I drink far less beer.
I drink far fewer bottles of beer.
Drinking beer from bottles? I ask you...
One of the great shames of the 50% idea from Major was that it removed the incentive for Government to fund those students doing courses that benefit our country - or at least gave them a perfect excuse to stop the funding.
This was very short sighted and damaging for the country.
I could understand it a generation or two back when there were fewer oldies and they generally had less money but why now ?
Why should a 25 year old have to pay more than a 65 year old to watch the same game when its the 65 year old who has all the wealth, no debts and has the higher income ?
Incidentally, in their home state, Honest Abe only carried IL against the Little Giant by +12k votes out of 340k total cast.
Why do young people not deserve them? The truth is neither do, in my view.
The young in this country get absolutely shafted, they get absolutely fuck all from the Tories.
I was trying to make a wry point about the long-standing shortcomings of the electoral college.
Maybe I should have explained more.
I support public ownership of the railways, increases in tax on the wealthiest.
If we actually bothered to vote, perhaps we would not be ignored.
Yet even Magic Grampa didn't do much for youth turnout, even in 2017. We like to complain but can't be bothered to vote.
My Grandmother before she died, told me that I must vote. She didn't care who it was for but that I must vote. I have never forgotten it and I never will.
A fund would be a really good idea.
It is far too early to be making judgments concerning which side might or might not be worth backing in future. However, if further down the line I'm both completely reassured that the Far Left has been locked out of power and the Labour platform sounds sufficiently realistic and attractive then I might go and vote for it, yes. The prospect of Prime Minister Starmer certainly doesn't terrify me, which is setting the bar very low but a satisfactory start nonetheless.
On the one hand voting is a bit of a pointless exercise around here because it's very safe for the Conservatives, but on the other hand if any one party sufficiently enthused me then I might opt to turn out and show support anyway. I'm not strongly ideologically wedded to either the left or the right so my endorsement is certainly there to be won.
I would also be far more prepared to own up to my mistakes, unlike Corbyn. I've said many times I regret supporting him but at least I am honest enough to say so. I hope that counts for something.
They don't vote in significant enough numbers so their desires are ignored by politicians who focus on currying favour from older age groups who do vote.
That doesn’t sound good.
I completely agree with you, if we could be bothered we wouldn't get shafted so much.
But your university ideas are spot on.
Note PA was in fact a special case, and these were actually Breckinridge-Douglas "fusion" votes. Which shows the risk of making over-broad assumptions.
Same lady was still running the place. Showed me the stool where JFK sat at the counter. Also showed me autographed picture of her favorite president - George Herbert Walker Bush.
If the 45 year olds of tomorrow have no stake in society, if they're not property owners or beginning to feel financially secure, they're not necessarily going to be in favour of policies that maintain the status quo.
However, the Pennsylvania votes didn’t count in the end. It’s the South where his electoral votes came from.
Admittedly, there are those who argue secession was a minority view even there.
Anyway, I am off to bed. Good night, one and all.
And then, of course, you finally get to retire and join the stickbanger class, after which the main objective of voting is to pick whichever side will do the best job of bleeding working taxpayers white to pay to look after you.
This, of course, is a crude oversimplification, but you get the general idea.