I think having definite leave to remain should entitle you to vote. I think it is wrong to have to change your nationality to vote. If you are paying taxes and contributing to the economy you should not lose your franchise because of an accident of where you are born.
This is incorrect. You are correct in saying that 16yr olds can join up but they are not allowed to go on active service until they are 18. That may have been so in your friend's time but not now. I'm sad to hear about your friend, who should never have been in a conflict at that age, 18 is bad enough.
Unless they are in television, film, theatre, modelling or even a sporting event where they are paid. And a very likely chance paid over the tax threshold. They can be even younger than 14 with a performance licence. So child actors, models and footballers all pass your criteria even though you've now added in the tax threshold. What ages do child actors begin their work? Can't wait for Starmer to announce that tax paying 5yr olds will get to vote at the next general election. It's a bit of a risk but the Peppa Pig Party will undoubtedly be quite an improvement on the current mob of incompetents. Minimum ages children can work Part-time work Children can work part-time from the age of 14. In some local council areas, children can work part-time from the age of 13. Contact your local council’s education department or education welfare service for more information. Children under 14 can work in areas like: television theatre modelling Children working in these areas will need a performance licence. Look, if you two stop the charade about this move being about young tax payers deserving their say or 16yr olds having an influence on their futures, we can move on. Just be honest and admit it's an attempt to get more votes, any party would probably do the same if it was to their advantage. But all this "it's for the kids" nonsense is fooling no-one. Maybe loading but certainly no-one else.
I think we live in a very questionable and imbalanced democracy that is highly open to manipulation so this is one of a number of things that I feel would make it more fair. For the record I also think its absolute bollocks and bad for democracy that Labour have a wacking majority on 33% of the vote too, even if I was personally very relieved (and highly amused) to see the Tories booted out and even if I have an extreme dislike for Reform UK, they should have more seats in the House of Commons for their vote share.
Where have I said that it's not an attempt to get more votes?, I've not changed my opinion on this as I've always thought that school leavers should be allowed to vote. They may not see active service until 18 any longer but they are trained to handle lethal weapons of war, hardly innocent. What are your reasons for opposing it (I assume that you do?).
Bit selective. 1 - What % of those elderly actually retired at 65. Not carried on in a part-time role? Most of the men had company pensions in an era where the wages salaries were pi55 poor. My Dad retired eventually at 57. lived by the budget until 65 when his state pension kicked in. 2 - 4-5x the wage mostly on a single income. Massive amount of women became housewives when kids were born with virtually zero state help. Child benefit then or now was not enough even to cover a few days food for the child! 3- They went without every luxury if it meant paying the mortgage. No half decent telly. TV Licence and a radio rentals TV all round. decent hi-fi only if husband already had it before they got together. No other tech. Hand me down furniture or cheap from second handshops. 4 - Going out, eating out...........never! No money for that. 5 - Clothes - rarely and clothes and shoes were much more expensive back then 6 - Food: Whatever was cheap. Steak a treat once a month at best. Liver and onions - yuck. Tongue, heart. cheap tinned sweetcorn. Salad only in the summer and then that was a couple of sliced of cabbage like lettuce, a tomati sliced and a few cucumber slices with a couple of slices of ham or corned beef - yuck! Knackered in 5 year old cars that would only last until 10 years anyway because they just rusted to bits quick. And after 15 years of sacrificing any treats? kids were now 15, mortgage was now affordable, bit of free money now with interest rates lower. Remember it isn't just about house prices. Interest meant they paid way more than we would now for that mortgage. How much would a mortgage on a 150k house be now if interest rates were 10-15%? I used to think my Dad was boring as f*** never going out at all..........but then I grew up and realised why and good for him and happy retirement at 57 because he earnt that. And if some tosser from government even suggested that they don't need their 3 bedroom home now their on their own. I would join the protest march. I will defend their "selfishness." Anyway back to filling out my right to buy form. I'm 50 so gonna go for a 15 year mortgage
Maybe the rules were different then. You cannot legally be sent to active service (war) until you are 18 and under 18 needs parental consent to join the army so while it is true a 16 year old can join the army, they still need their parents to sign their consent. And 16 year olds are not allowed to work more than 8 hours a day, so jobs with a 10 hour shift are out of bounds for them! Not sure but think they might not be allowed to work nightshifts either.......Got to protect the "children."
My wife has lived here 21 years but doesn't get to vote. Good job as she loves Farage and being Portuguese she hates the EU. lol. But she loves Portugal and does not want to become a British Citizen.
You're not allowed to leave school at 16 anymore unless you have a job! I was getting a lot of nasty phone calls from the authorities when my 16 year old was disappearing doing County Lines when he was supposed to be attending college! Not a lot I could do about it but it was of course "parent's to blame."
Trite but true. The youth of today would be shocked how basic life was for a lot of people, just to pay that mortgage. I'm not arguing that house prices are not too hig, they are and I'm not arguing that its almost impossible to get on the housing ladder these days. I am just saying a comparison of house prices then v now is far too simplistic ignoring how much people actually paid for that mortgage because of the interest rates and the lives they led just to pay that bill!
Not to go into victim complex territory, but these are my thoughts on these points; 1. It will be the same situation for those retiring at 68 in the future if they are physically and mentally still capable. 2. That sounds like an even bigger advantage to me? Most households now have two parents working out of necessity, not out of luxury. 3. I will kind of agree on this one, but also add that its kind of hard to compare - 'luxuries' such as televisions are much much cheaper now and some things that were once 'luxuries' have now become necessities like mobile phones (often required for work and replacing landlines). People aren't missing out on owning their own home because they forked out on a television and a computer rather than save, one has become way cheaper and the other has become incredibly more expensive against earnings, 4. Isn't the Hospitality and Night Sector in decline now because people aren't as able to afford to go out as they were? I am comparing more with the 90s and 00s than earlier tbh, but we are generally not as well off as we were in the early 00s. 5. Agree. 6. Better options are available now for sure, but again affordability has declined in recent times compared with the last couple of decades.
Absolute nonsense. People were spending more on fashion, music, colour tvs, the pub, etc., in the 70s than they had in any previous decade. And that spending has simply moved to other things. A smaller population once easily funded ten times as many pubs. The fish and chip shop was crammed with people. Young people now have moved their disposable income to other pursuits, no longer wasting money on ***s and alcohol. It is a complete fallacy to say that young people are wasteful, while ironically claiming people in the past were better with money. Neither is particularly true. But what is undoubtedly true is that, for all their supposed wastefulness, today’s youth have to pay out more to survive with less freedom to make a life of their own. How many teens moved out at 16 in the 70s? How many could now?
?? You think living on a single income because there was no tax credits, no free daycare, no help at all was an advantage? Wow! It was out of neccessity people lived off a single income. Because they had to look after their children! I have a dumbphone. Smartphones aren't a necessity. Lots of people back then relied on the nearest phonebox. And while TVs and Computers are cheaper there was other "luxuries" that cost a lot back then which they went without, Some stuff that has been replaced by something else these days. Hospitality sector is on its knees for many reasons such as, the sheer cost of going out for a pint or 2, the fact that noughties onward clubs opened later, no need to get to pub early for cheaper beers. Habits have changed socially. People have smartphones to do their social networking now, they don't need to go out to do it. People now get loaded up at home and go straight to the club which doesn't close at 2am sharp anymore. People are still spending on nightlife, they are skipping the pub bit and doing their 5+ hours in the club instead. I don;t buy the "smoking ban" narrative at all. It was societal change and from my anecdotal experience smokers didn't stay at home. They still went out and just went to the smoking shelters or outside the front door of pubs to smoke. In recent times yes but still cheap compared to back then. Small choice, only in season, mega pricey for decent food. Casserole, Stew, home made curries, basic Slop and gruel 9 nights out of 10. I used to love getting home from school on a Tuesday because my Mum would buy 1 packet of crisps each for me and my sister! That was it! 1 packet of crisps a week........was a treat! By the 90s we got more treats yes but we were 15 and 13 by then. mid nineties to 00s was when people started to feel a bit more money in their pocket. Once the ERM recession faded and the boom started in the Tories last 2 years under Major, more a global boom really because relaxation on banks, governments doing their own versions of PFI to make it seem like dreamworld all the while they were building and handing out borrowed money to maintain the facade.
I already agreed with you on the house / rent thing. I was just saying this straight line comparison between house prices and wages ignores the difference in interest rate. "People" were spending more on fashion? Which people? Not the boring old fart, frumpily dressed mums and run down still in 70s flared suits in the 80s Dads thats for sure. People were not spending more on colour TVs. they rented them. The price of buying a colour TV in the 70s was off the scale and they broke easily! Did you not read my post? My parents went nowhere! They were not an anomaly. Music? The odd album. lol. And I mean the odd album. My parents bought a house in 1972! A colour TV in 1972 was the equivalent of 2 grand today! That's nearly what their "first home" cost! My parent rented TVs until about 1990. lol. Mostly force of habit but no way they could afford to buy a TV until the mid eighties. "Even in 1972, the price of a colour TV was £225 (£3,158.93 in 2022 costs), a slight reduction from the late 60s of £304 (£5,610.01)."* Fish and chip shops were crammed, I agree. but then chips really were cheap as chips and fish was cheapish. Its probably comparable prices today fishwise but chips were cheap. Cooked in lovely 10 day old oil to boot to give it a bit of flavour You need to stop getting your stats and comparisons from Cosmopolitan or Tattler. Its not a good source of "what norrmal folks did in the 70s" ** https://electronicworldtv.co.uk/blogs/news/the-cost-of-tvs-over-the-years#:~:text=In comparison, a brand new,£254 (£868). Simple AI google answer which kinda contradicts your analysis of what people spent their money on in the 70s: In the 1970s, the average monthly spending of UK families was influenced by rising inflation and changing consumption patterns. Housing costs doubled, while spending on food and clothing decreased. Average weekly earnings were around £32 in 1970, and while wages rose, so did household outgoings
I said more than any previous decade. Is reading that much of a chore that I have respond to something not even remotely linked to what I said? Argue this in good faith: a family in the 70s could afford mum to stay home, pay in cash and not credit, for dad to pop to the pub every day and smoke 40 ciggies. The fact that there was less to spend on is totally irrelevant. You could work one job and know you were set for life. Going home every day and doing nothing was a choice for your parents generation and it is now pretty much the only thing young parents can possibly afford.
Just back on these two; Differing pros and cons; It might have not have been an easy life and threadbare compared to now, but equally I don't think most couples could pay off a mortgage now if a parent gave up work, whereas back then the important things could be covered in one income, even if luxuries were much harder to come by. An austere life with less freedom but more security that can sustain its core on one income vs A life with cheaper luxuries but more complex requiring both adults to work to afford a mortgage. Also its not the case for everyone but smartphones can be a necessity, depending on what you do for a living, they can also be utilized to make people more efficient and productive which compensates for the initial cost.
You accuse me of not reading and then talk about "Dad" popping to the pub every day. Hmmm. And it wasn't "Mum could afford to stay at home" It was not a choice. There was no other option. You are oblivious to how life was back then because you've read too much of "how good people had it" on the net! Yes I will argue in good faith because you present this picture of Dads spenig at will down the pub and Mums "choosing" to stay at home when neither is or was true for most families! There wasn;t less to spend on. In any era there is plenty to spend on. In any era there is tech, or furniture, or any number of other things that you choose or not to spend and back then most families chose to put everything into the mortgage and forego any luxury. They paid in cash not credit because they bought nothing!. As soon as a 5 year old car was bought money got put away ready for it to be scrap value only in 5 more years and rinse repeat. Set for life? Only once the mortgage slowed down You really believe this rubbish you're typing? The North south divide must be even more than we ever knew! If I started a family now and the wife had to stay at home for a few years, tax credits would fill that gap! My wage (just above NMW) is about $29k/year. a 3 bed terrace in Lincoln can be got for circa £120k, bit less if it is not modernised. Mortgages are cheap atm in comparison to 70s. Wife could go back to work once children were old enough to go to the free daycare (no free daycare in the 70s"
It seems to me you are too upset attacking me and the ‘source’ of my information. I was born in tbe 70s and grew up in the 80s. I know what it was like. You are basing all this on your own father and mother, when plenty of people did not stay in. Plenty of fathers were in the pub every night. Let’s be truthful here. Fewer than half of women (47%) with kids under 18 worked in 1975 (stats from department of labour). That isn’t because 16 years olds need babysitting al the time. That is because you didn’t need as much money to live. You keep saying how expensive luxuries were then and how cheap they are now. But we all know luxuries are a distraction from the increasing hopelessness and marginalisation of young people. The core of a home - and by that I don’t just mean mortgages but also rent - was there for everyone. Council house. Housing association. Cheap, affordable, and a real home for people. Now old people NIMBY the **** out of new building plans… while going on 4 holidays a year.
Again. I never said "16 year olds need babysitting" that is you sniping. and I am not basing it off my Mum and Dad. I am basing it off the majority of those kids around me that I knew. And it wasn't "because you needed less money to live." It is because you had the hand you were dealt and had to make the best of it! And again. I am not arguing about house prices being mental. I am arguing against this charade presentation of "they had it all so good back then." Like I say. I work, my wife works. £45k combined per year. 3 bed terrace in Lincoln £120k. My parents moved from Winchester............so they could afford a house and ironically my Dad got a transfer from the DHSS to work in the Lincoln office which he did for 41 years until they wouldn't let him do his job anymore so he took voluntary redundancy. £120k first homes. The choice is there still You love to snipe with exaggeration. lol. 4 holidays a year? Why do you always focus on those that are properly rich and not the ones that just managed their lives to scrape through to retirement? Those that can afford 4 holidays a year most likely never had to scrape anything in the 70s either! Old rich people NIMBY. Ones that did not struggle and do not struggle now! It isn't the run of the mill old person NIMBYing stuff, it is the same people / demographic that always NIMBYd before. "The haves" that have always had.
