Tories lost the 2019 election among working age adults

[Housey]

There was no foreign competition when they were young. That's my explanation to boomers success.

Then you are naive.

To be clear I’m not a boomer being born in 1967 but hearing young people moan about the old is little more than same as it ever was. All today’s boomers were yesterday’s moaners and most of you will be doing it in years to come. I hear myself 30 years ago.

Perspectives change with age as you become more seasoned/bitter/tired/frustrated/happy. I’ve voted Conservative from the day I started voting so go figure.

Maybe I’ll move to labour when i retire and live off all the hard up highly educated and informed 20 and 30 year olds paying for my retirement in the country I helped ruin for them as I do nothing. The millions in tax I’ve paid and jobs I’ve helped create can be sneered at by those who for the first time in history have life sorted and have all the answers to what I and my scummy ilk did wrong.

Same as it ever was. You wanna change it, now is your chance. Stop moaning and make a change as today’s 20 year olds are our future politicians. Own it and change it for the next generation…..but you won’t and ask yourself why.

 

[Eurofighter]

I'm not moaning. I'm doing fine thanks. Anyway as the stats show. Workers don't vote conservative.

 

[Mason-]

This is democracy. Have you truly truly considered the ramifications of the alternatives? Read some history books. If you accept democracy, you have to accept that your 1 vote is worth as much as the 107 year old who might pass away the day after they vote, and it's worth the same as the person who turned 18 on the day we vote. And you also have to accept when your party loses.

I think a lot of people on this forum are engineers/logical types like myself. And so they see a 'problem' and try to fix it. What you're ignoring is the thousands of years of human societal progress to this point. We have tried other versions, we've evolved to this. It's not perfect, it has problems but it is the fairest most reasonable way to run a society. Having any one persons vote count for more than others implicitly creates an underclass. And any way you slice it, age, race, sex, it flies in the face of equality.

Society, government, ways to run a country aren't logical, they're more akin to religions. They work on faith, trust and personal belief.

 

[MadMossy]

Well, it's not their future....

Might not be their future, but they have their past experiences to go on and for some people that may have been significantly worse than anything younger generations have had to deal with currently, even covid-19. You had the Tories through the 80's and part of the 90's, then you had Labour for part of the 90's and most of the 00's, we've had Tories again since 2010.

I personally never really paid much attention to politics, until at least John Major came into power, but even then it was more of a knowing he existed and not really knowing much about what he was doing, I had just left school when his term came to an end. Most of my early adulthood was spent under Labour and even then I don't recall much of what happened politically, other than the whole WMD/Iraq war situation, which we all know now was a lie.

Under Cameron I started to pay more attention and actively sought out information regarding policies and candidate. So I think it's safe to assume that the reason most voters are generally older, is that they are more likely to start paying attention to politics, unlike younger folk who tend to ignore it.

 

[Greebo]

I do think its a "problem" which will only get worse and worse as with the increasing life expectancy and lower birthrates, the retired population will soon outnumber the working population and its always going to be the retired vote which decided the direction and rules the working people have to live by.

Which is why the Tories have always gone after the older vote. They know that this is all they need to secure the next 50 years in power.

 

[Uther]

I do think its a "problem" which will only get worse and worse as with the increasing life expectancy and lower birthrates, the retired population will soon outnumber the working population and its always going to be the retired vote which decided the direction and rules the working people have to live by.

Which is why the Tories have always gone after the older vote. They know that this is all they need to secure the next 50 years in power.

Well, you'll be a pensioner soon enough, you know who to vote for...

 

[Quartz]

It's just been put in a graph

So it hasn't been carefully selected, curated, and stretched to the nth degree?

 

[Slam62]

I'm a centre left voter. I think we need a labour government. At least once in a while if not most of the time. Don't you remember the good old days when Blair and brown were in. Ha. Not perfect but better than Cameron and may.

I don't mind Boris that much because at least he spends money. Hopefully on places other than the South East. I'm still waiting for our local train to be electrified. But no they just bought some 2nd hand diesel trains.

I think it is the boomers that skew things. There was no foreign competition when they were young. That's my explanation to boomers success. Also there are loads of them so voting wise they get beneficial policies.

Lol go and read up on Maggie etc, UK industry was destroyed, while they sold off utilities and burned through North Sea oil.
I wanted to be rid of Maggie and Major and was pleased when Blair won, but in the end they achieved sod all. They did nothing for industry and grew a massive credit bubble. The gulf war and Brown's desperate response to the credit crunch were the cause of most of the millenials issues.

 

[Housey]

I'm not moaning. I'm doing fine thanks. Anyway as the stats show. Workers don't vote conservative.

Again with the naive generalisations...

 

[cheesyboy]

So it hasn't been carefully selected, curated, and stretched to the nth degree?

The data is pretty clear. Data's data. What are you arguing here?

 

[HangTime]

This implies young people do not become old peopme

No, it implies that when young people become old people, if their votes aren't converted from Labour to Convservative, they might have a problem. Think of it as a conveyor belt, the old people drop off the end and are replaced by new people. If they haven't changed from Red to Blue during the course of that journey, the proportion of Blue old people will reduce.

 

[Housey]

The data is pretty clear. Data's data. What are you arguing here?

No, it really isn't. It's a moment in time that can be interpreted to mean many different things based on who is interpreting it. Surely C19 has evidence this.

 

[Quartz]

UK industry was destroyed,

Actually, it wasn't. What happened was that the number of people working in it went down. Manufacturing output declined from about £130B in 1979 to about £110B in 1982 and recovered to about £160 billion in 1997 (using 2007 prices). See page 6 of this document from PWC.

You might also read this article. Pay particular attention to the red line on this graph:



Note that the datum is different from the PWC document.

 

[Greebo]

Well, you'll be a pensioner soon enough, you know who to vote for...

true and what counts in life will change and hence who i vote for will change.

Climate change and cost of living are the two least concerns for the elderly voter.

Older voters tend to think of themselves far more as English rather than British.

Crime and pensions and healthcare are what the elderly vote on.

The elderly are not only far more likely to vote but by 2050 will be 38% of the population and already 60% of them vote Tory.

I cant see any party other than Tory winning for the next 100 years. Unless the opposition parties tailor their policies solely for their elderly.

 

[Hades]

I think it's problematic if the voting power of the old is so much stronger than the young, that we see it bending policy to disadvantage people at the start of their lives, or at the age we might expect them to have children, to give advantage to those who will only be affected for a relatively short time.

Clearly, society should look after all ages. But does a government appointed by only the elderly have incentive, or even the mandate, to do so?

In my opinion.

when it comes to the future yes because they won't be here but their offspring will be.

It's kinda said it takes so many generations for any change with politics and our current government and political parties are all bottom of the barrel imo

our government is as out of touch with society as the old people who keep them in power.

I suppose we should be grateful we don't have a dodgy coffin dodger like biden at the helm

The government isn't appointed by only the elderly. We all get one equal vote. That was a right which has been fought for through the generations. Before 1918 women and most men could not vote. They were not "trusted" to make correct decisions. You had to meet certain criteria to be eligible to vote (in other words be of good standing and wealthy). It sounds to me that you think one particular demographic (the elderly in this case) can't be trusted to make the right decision?

Does that mean you are all against the policy of one person one equal vote, and that people should have a percentage vote assigned which is based on various criteria?

What would be the cutoff age?

Who decides that criteria?

What other criteria apart from not being elderly do you suggest?

How do we safeguard it so that it can't be used for political purposes to influence future elected governments (in much the same way the selling off of council houses was done to help Tory elections and the influx of migrant labour was done to help Labour elections).

What do we do in the near future when the current baby boom elderly bubble reduces?

Should people with children be granted a more "powerful" vote than people without children? They have much more of a stake in building the future than younger people who may or may not have their own children. Surely there is a greater chance of elderly people having not only more life experience but also more stake in the future in terms of children and grand children?

 

[cheesyboy]

Surely there is a greater chance of elderly people having not only more life experience but also more stake in the future in terms of children and grand children?

I'm not sure old people can vicariously, through their descendents, have more stake in the future than those descendents themselves do, tbh!

As for the rest; I don't believe anyone was suggesting votes should be removed from the elderly. Really, this thread is asking: is this a problem? (that the government has a mandate only from the retired)

Its widely recognised that the young are unlikely to be as wealthy as their parents. They also, it seems, have much less access to democratic means of changing that.

What if the government continues to give pensions the triple-lock treatment, continues to hold up house prices by strangling supply, continues to do less than is needed on climate change....? All of these are grey-vote winners, but they don't do much for the young.

Does a government appointed only by the old, only service the old?

As a general point, can we stop with the "old people are smarter/more experienced /knowledgeable" crap?! There's a lot of it in the thread, and it's nonsense. For every positive about having longer tenure and experience in the world, there's a negative of difficulty adapting to, or understanding, modernity.

 

[dlockers]

I'm not sure old people can vicariously, through their descendents, have more stake in the future than those descendents themselves do, tbh!

As for the rest; I don't believe anyone was suggesting votes should be removed from the elderly. Really, this thread is asking: is this a problem? (that the government has a mandate only from the retired)

Its widely recognised that the young are unlikely to be as wealthy as their parents. They also, it seems, have much less access to democratic means of changing that.

What if the government continues to give pensions the triple-lock treatment, continues to hold up house prices by strangling supply, continues to do less than is needed on climate change....? All of these are grey-vote winners, but they don't do much for the young.

Does a government appointed only by the old, only service the old?

As a general point, can we stop with the "old people are smarter/more experienced /knowledgeable" crap?! There's a lot of it in the thread, and it's nonsense. For every positive about having longer tenure and experience in the world, there's a negative of difficulty adapting to, or understanding, modernity.

Do you have the same data if students were removed, or people earning below the national average were removed? Which other groups can we remove to get the outcome you want?

 

[Hades]

I'm not sure old people can vicariously, through their descendents, have more stake in the future than those descendents themselves do, tbh!

I put it as a counterpoint to suggestions (by several people) that elderly people have less of a stake in the future. An argument can be made either way.

When I was younger I voted to build a better life for myself. But as I get older I increasingly vote for what I feel is my childrens best interests. My path in life is now set (I'm in my 50's). But I vote to build a better world for my children. Voting remain in Brexit was heavily influenced by wanting them to have the freedom to live and work easily across the EU.

As for the rest; I don't believe anyone was suggesting votes should be removed from the elderly. Really, this thread is asking: is this a problem? (that the government has a mandate only from the retired)

I think we are looking at the wrong problem. The problem is being posed as "Do the elderly have too much influence on government policy". But I think the real problem is that all governments have far too much of a short term view. They pander to whoever they feel will get them voted in again at the next election (and that just happens to be the largest demographic which is the elderly). Most politicians nowadays are career politicians. They desperately cling on to their job for both power and to pay their salary. It means their decision making is always short term. We somehow need to get back to longer term strategic planning for the country, with plans put down and followed through, for the next 10, 20, 50 and even a hundred years. Short termism is very damaging.

 

[stockhausen]

Without credible statistical evidence, this allegation that working age adults are in no way responsible for the most recent massive Tory election victory and that it is down to OAPs is utter nonsense

 

[Housey]

As a general point, can we stop with the "old people are smarter/more experienced /knowledgeable" crap?! There's a lot of it in the thread, and it's nonsense. For every positive about having longer tenure and experience in the world, there's a negative of difficulty adapting to, or understanding, modernity.

But they are more experienced in many things, that isn't an opinion, it as by virtue of age. Now my dad has never travelled anywhere near like I have, he doesn't have anywhere near the understanding of tech, modern business, the interests of the younger generation, but he has lots of skills that helped me get there. To simply throw that away and tell him his value is now done, STFU dad you know nothing and are slowing us all down is frankly crazy. My mum, 82, has iPad, iPone, Apple TV, MacBook and use them all.....for playing card games and listening to tunes and watching some YouTube

Lest you forget the old people are the ones that gave you this soap box, the device you type into said soap box, the mechanisms to move it from you to me etc etc etc. The young are the future, they control it and where it goes next but they have done little in reality other than stand on their soapbox to tell the old people how they have ruined it for them.....for generation after generation. So to you point don't lessen their knowledge, experience or smarts because they were EXACTLY (bar generational differences) where you are, you have never been where they are and I can virtually guarantee when you get there it will make more sense because it just does.

So it is up to the young to now make the change as they have the ball. Focus less on what those who went before did wrong or what they can and can't do today. To do anything less is falling into the same box you (as in young people not just you) seek to cast at others perhaps. There comes a time when you have to own the problem and work to fix it. No one ever has of course for its really hard and not as simple as throwing stones without having to own the problem.