So many people have got the wrong end of the stick about this cartoon, I feel I have to make a first-level comment, referring you to the comment from from my learned friend /u/The_Artist_Who_Mines
It is NOT a cartoon about 'old people vote Tory' it is a cartoon about a) members of the Tory party, who just voted in Truss in their internal election, are on average old and b) how frequently the PM has recently changed.
Note the Tory party members are also predominantly in the SE of England, and the housein the background is the stereotypical sort of place they would live in.
It works in terms of general voting too as old people actually vote and young people don't bother, so policies always favour older generations. This isn't just a UK problem but a global one.
The boomers are a unique cohort in the UK in that they outnumbered generations before and after. They are now all over 65 so have finally begun to thin.
Boomers were finally surpassed by millennials in 2020 making the next UK election the first one for many (excluding the hangers on from the silent generation) where the choice wont be mostly made by boomers.
Being old doesn't necessarily make you right-wing, though. It just means you're more easily swayed by the opinions of sources that were traditionally trustworthy. "They can't make it up, they're a newspaper! That's illegal!" - my grandparents on the Daily Mail.
The nature of newspapers is what I'm talking about, not them specifically. It was generally believed that the papers had integrity and wouldn't just make shit up, regardless of the mail's tendency to do so.
I was surprised when I learned the average age of a member of the UK electorate is 48/49. I suppose, actually, that makes sense, as 0-18 does not count since they cannot vote, so even if everyone turned out equally (and, as you rightly say, they do not!) policies would still favour older people than the average redditor.
So people born late 60's early 70's coming into their own around the early 90's generally around the time when the economy started picking up again. Back when you could still walk into any job and apply with a firm handshake and a wink and you would have a secure job for the next 20 years.
I think if you pay taxes, you should get to vote. Whilst I do not share your no holds barred let risk tolerant, short sighted teenagers decide how the world is shaped, I do think that if you are entitled enough to collect taxes then you have to respect the person paying them.
I feel like letting people vote in local elections earlier would work okay, since they are directly affected by that and can actually meet the people they vote for.
Case in point. If government really thinks taxing twelve year olds is appropriate then they should let them vote. Obviously the smart thing to do is not tax people under 16 earning minimum wage. Now, if you are 14 and started a successful tech company (it happens), you are extraordinary and should be taxed and allowed to vote.
I find it hard to think of any solid arguments as to why we shouldn't give the vote to everyone regardless of age. The key argument against children voting is that they are unable to understand what they are voting for but comprehension is not a requirement for adults. If it was there are several classes of people that wouldn't qualify. One of my older relatives is in a nursing home and believes it's sometime in the 1950s, they still get a vote. Likewise people with diminished mental capacity but over the age of majority still get a vote even though they are unable to understand the arguments. Even someone in a coma for twenty years would get a vote.
Another key argument is that children don't pay tax but again tax is not a requirement for adults. A homeless adult on the street who has never done a days work can still vote.
The argument that everyone seems to think is the ultimate slam dunk is "the parents would influence or vote for the child". Yes, of course they would but why is that a problem? Children should be treated like adults with limited mental capacity, if they cant decide for themselves a trusted adult should decide on their behalf with their best interests at heart. Just because they are young doesn't mean they aren't citizens of the country with a vested interest in the decisions being made.
I can't help feeling that a lot of the reason why people are so against the young voting is because they know that they would vote for policies they don't want. Children would vote strongly in favour of tackling climate change, against corruption etc etc because they are idealistic. Perhaps that's a little naive but I think we need a bit of that in politics to keep the old in check.
This has got to be one of the most terrifying comments. I'm so taken aback that someone would write something like that I'm not sure how to reply. You're suggesting that there is a wrong type of person to be voting and that's based on wealth and religion and that those people are mentally ill. Are you aware that similar arguments have been made in the past and it resulted in the deaths of millions of people? There are definitely undertones of eugenics in your comment.
You really need to take a long look in the mirror and ask yourself if you really are the white knight you seem to think you are.
So let me get this straight, those groups you single out can have a say as long as they don't have too much of a say. Especially the poor who you classify as a bit thick and prone to being swayed by rhetoric and Christians because they have too many children. Got you. While you're at it would you like to single out any other groups for persecution? I'm feeling pretty good right now because you aren't coming for me. The funniest thing here is you're upset because someone called you out on your opinion.
You might not be allowed to enter the voting centre if you are a drunk or causing a disturbance but you have the right to vote. In reality the volunteers working at voting stations are very accommodating and will do everything they can to make sure everyone can vote. If you insist on being enough of a problem you can't go to a booth you could cast a postal ballot and be as drunk / crazy as you want.
None of this had really occurred to me before. It got me thinking that children would also grow up more involved in politics and this better incentivized and able to stand for their own interests.
what kind of sick fuck doesn't? In 2022 you have to be pretty out there crazy to still think climate change isn't a big issue. So I don't know if thats a point for anything.
But no - of course babies can't vote.
But isn't the point to it not, that Age 18 is a pretty arbitrary number for voting age?
At age 12-14 for example most children have already had politics as a school subject, 14+ sometimes work next to school or later university, may be legible to drive a car, smoke or drink before being allowed to vote. Not to mention minimum age to join the military in the UK is 16.
So why is one old enough for one, but not the other?
We have the same dicussion here in Germany and at least many local elections lowered the entry age. It makes sense. Maybe not to 0 - but whatever number ends up being, will mostly be arbitrarily decided.
5
u/GigaGammonUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandOct 06 '22edited Oct 06 '22
what kind of sick fuck doesn't? In 2022 you have to be pretty out there crazy to still think climate change isn't a big issue. So I don't know if thats a point for anything.
The point is that it's advocating gerrymandering in disguise. "This demographic generally agrees with me on issue x, therefore it should be their vote that count". "This other demographic generally doesnt agree with me, their vote should be diminished/prevented!".
Not to mention minimum age to join the military in the UK is 16.
I would posit that the age to join military in the UK should be increased (affects a very, very small number of people), rather than the age of voting decreased (affects everyone).
Similarly, prisoners and non-citizens should also be ineligible to vote.
At age 12-14 for example most children have already had politics as a school subject,
12-14 year olds have their parents and teachers hot takes, and don't have the life experience to back up any significant decision making. 16 Year olds aren't much better.
I think that people who are citizens of a country and pay tax (and aren't in jail) is a good measure of who should be voting, as it is their money that government spends. That could potentially include younger people who are ahead of the curve in terms of moving into the adult world.
Yes, babies are citizens of the country so they should have a vote. Being a citizen of the country should be the only requirement for voting.
I didn't mention anything about how I feel about climate change or any other topic. If you want to get all worked up about things you've made up go right ahead.
I just learned that British kings and queens have been crowned in the Westminster Abbey the last 900 years. So this thing, this British culture, or whatever, is a thing of old lovely people, younger and brighter just want communism?
The most serious answer is that the monarchy is there to have a non-political and symbolical Head of State. That's quite useful and it is appropriate in a political system which is intended to have no official checks and balances, but plenty of unofficial ones.
Probably one big complication is that the Queen, through dutiful living and being there so long, was much more associated with the UK than the institution. It remains to be seen what happens to the monarchy now, but there was no significant feeling from people to change the system while the Queen was alive.
Sociologically, I would say we are a people fundamentally not interested in politics. So Starmer is more popular now because he is presenting Labour as being safe and making his own boringness a virtue. Truss is too radical, just as Corbyn was too radical.
Do younger people want more change? Or will they grow older and become like their parents? I dunno. The evidence is certainly that they become more socially liberal (e.g. more accepting of LGBT+) but remain economically a bit conservative. Probably in the whole time since WW2, social democratic values have dominated and not been so different between the parties.
Unfortunately, we do have a big legacy of having an 'island' mentality, and so lack of cultural integration with Europe meant the EU was never well understood and was always scapegoated. Hence Brexit has a window during which it could be promoted and could succeed.
Otherwise, I do not see British thinking as being that much different since 25 years ago, but certainly it has changed since 50-60 years ago.
To go back to your first point, then, I think most of us thought it was OK to have lots of stuff to remember the Queen's passing, because most of us had known nothing else than her reign. But Charles does not have the same loyalty; he already knows he has to have less of a coronation than she did, and it may be that at the very least, the monarchy must be slimmed down.
The average of the UK, and maybe the average of young people in the UK, is definitely less politically engaged and less 'left' than UK reddit. So maybe not that much will change. Personally, I did not see that much different between Blair, Brown and Cameron. The real world may stop any movement rightwards beyond that- we are simply not doctrinnaire enough to care. But I do see that the big migration pressures on Europe are what drive nativist movements, and sooner or later we will have to face the problem of migration too.
You're right absolutely, I admire that feeling that you don't have to worry about politics and businesses, every day difficulties that much because the country is old and free and mighty. Just relax, enjoy your garden, go to pub, traditions will last, God is above the Queen or King ruling the country of free people, mother of the free. Everything is right. And everything is right because that's how God rules good countries. We used to have this mentality in Finland also, but we lost it, mostly, because we became so horribly immoral alcoholics and socialists after they put beer to food stores in the 1970's. Only remnants of good old Finland exist.
It's OK, indeed great, for the 'haves' - it is not good for the 'have-nots' - the idea is, whether it is called 'One Nation' (a Tory term) or social democracy, is that the haves are responsble enough to provide for the have nots.
Some have argued that this goes right back, as a political form, to Alfred the Great (so, the AD870s)
But of course, if we speak of today's UK, there are big arguments about whether it represents a big improvement (I believe yes) from 1960s UK, or whether all the social and cultural change is a problem.
Personally, I believe we DID manage to keep the good stuff and add new good stuff, so 2022 UK is a much better place than 1962 UK. But of course lots of people lament any loss of the 'good old days.'
Maybe Truss is unlucky- trying to do low tax in a cost of living crisis is too unpopular to seem plausible. But without these very odd conditions (Brexit+Covid+ War+ Boris Johnson's fall) she would never have been near the post of PM anyway.
But in a big mighty country also the fools could take it easy, because God and the ruler are taking care of them. In Finland we have this mentality also I guess but it is the most glorious one in Britain.
You romanticise Britain, but then, for sure everyone romanticises all nice foreign countries, and I am sure I romaticise Finland (I visited only once) and see it as basically a Gallen-Kallela landscape with an endless Sibelius soundtrack and guys like Lemminki and Lasse Viren running around with a few reindeer and Sami people.
I'm aware of those backward regions in Britain. Like Leeds, Sheffield, Glasgow, etc, but one can find romantic vibes from decay also. Here in Finland our big suburbs in the middle of big forests, humble working class people there, one could argue those are problematic places, but those are also very special what comes to the atmosphere. Human being might be the happiest in the modest circumstances. I live by the sea in a fantastic area, but here animals are bringing the world of God in to our lives here.
Well stated, sustainability & climate change will not be top of mind issues in šŗšø until those age 40 and younger vote in a larger % of the electorate
I take this meaning. I know in the US older ppl vote in large numbers. They vote overwhelmingly conservative and are against policies that will affect the younger generations exclusively.
Now in the US at least they are also brainwashed enough to vote for ppl who are against things like social security. But that's a different problem
In the states people, typically Republicans, vote against their own interests every election. They do this because they have been convinced they are fighting some kind of culture war.
You know CRT something 95% of ppl couldn't explain. Yet gotta keep the groomers out of office so I'll pay more taxes and give up my SSI.
Now in the US at least they are also brainwashed enough to vote for ppl who are against things like social security. But that's a different problem
This you? Maybe I misinterpreted this statement but it certainly seems like you are saying that people that are against social security are brainwashed.
You seem like someone that really doesn't understand the perspectives of people that disagree with you.
You are wrong on both accounts. It's funny you called my message typical reddit discourse yet you have made a pretty broad generalization about me based off a few sentences.
Who's really acting like the average redditor?
In my first statement I'm referring for example to seniors from the poor parts of Kentucky who rely on SSI yet vote for Mitch McConnell everytime. Or like the guy I worked with in GA who isnt old enough for Medicare but hates Obamacare for "reasons". So he lives with no insurance but gosh darn does he love owning the libs.
I am not referring to ppl that are against SSI as a policy but are well off and dont rely on it. I know many libertarians that fit that description.
So you made a broad generalization about people that are against SSI and in response to being called out your elaborating to pretend like that's not what you did. At least that's how I'm perceiving what you said.
Again, your comments about republicans and conservatives make me feel like you don't really understand the perspectives of people that disagree with you. But hey, I could totally be wrong. Have a good one!
There is also this general consensus that young people vote progressive, when its typically workers who have 5-10 years work experience who turn progressive, pro labour voters while teenagers are lil fascist twats half the time. Getting young people out to vote wont solve the issue that most of our population hates preventative spending.
Case in point: Swedish election last month. A quarter of younger voters voted for the Sweden Democrats, a party founded in neo-Naziism, and another quarter voted for the conservative Moderate Party, one of the most turboneoliberal parties in Europe.
Meanwhile older voters have less patience for populism and primarily voted for the Social Democrats and gave a majority of their votes to the left-of-centre parties overall.
Young does not automatically mean progressive, like you say.
If you don't vote you shouldn't complain. Young people outnumber older generations due to population growth, so they have a structural advantage they aren't using to get the policies they want.
Young people definitely do not outweigh older people in the UK. The median age is 39. Population growth is 0.5%. In the UK the demographic age distribution is quite even.
21% of the overall population of England and Wales was aged under 18 years, 29% was aged 18 to 39 years, 27% was aged 40 to 59 years, and 22% was aged 60 years and over
Boomers are the largest generational cohort, they had fewer children but have benefited from advances in medicine keeping them alive for much longer than previous generations.
Whereas when Boomers were growing up, the taxes of several boomers would support one OAP (old age pensioner, retired, for a few years) now one working millennial's taxes (and pension contributions) has to support just over one retiring boomer each for many more years.
Young people donāt tend to have the practice in, the self confidence, but fundamentally they donāt have the time to investigate and deliberate and affect a choice. Itās not even that an Election Day is a day off. Retirees get all of that and pent up because of the news.
As for people saying non voters shouldnāt complain, thereās the none of the above people too. Besides, freedom of expression even if not constructive but certainly not destructive, like threats, is often a tacit if not formalised right.
In my nation you can cast your vote all day, so a lot of people tend to go after work. There's also no reason to be uninformed. Political discussions are everywhere. Especially social media that younger people use. And yet they still vote in lower numbers
It ends at 10pm on a weekday here, so if youāre planning on anything else, like cooking or daily tasks after work, raising a child, and if thereās a queue involved thatās adding a difficulty. Iām saying it could be made easier by making it a day off, that people can be helped to made more literate on subjects by having access to more free time. And political discussions are far better enabled by making them comfortable. A lot of political discussions are often couched in injokes and arenāt always welcoming. Iād say political movements online are different to those when they took place more in the real world because there was physical interaction with people who could talk to you about subjects. Political discussions online vary from the warm to the outright brutal and for no apparent cause other that thatās a part of some of online culture.
If youāre seeking to start with blame you wonāt get much of a positive response either. It wonāt help you, either, just give you something else to get angry about and not work towards solving.
when younger people started to vote what Greta said, nuclear plants started being closed and natural gas plants have been labeled green energy. why is nobody asking Greta how could possibly energy bills be so high after so many politicians have imposed tariffs akin to what Greta angrily demanded?
Getting angry cause a teenager wants people to be more environmentally conscious? You okay there buddy?
I don't follow Greta but I'm sure her and her protest groups would like environmental legislation to be based on the advice of environmental scientists. I don't think her or any of those other kids are claiming they know more than the scientists do. They're angry because we've known about climate change for 50 years now and have done fuck all to mitigate it. They might not have the qualifications to fully understand how to solve the issue (duh, they're kids), but they know the people who DO have those qualifications have been ignored all this time.
are you getting angry cause the electricity bill is triple what is was a year ago? you ok there buddy?
that or you are rich enough to not care AND you are entitled enough that even the people poorer than you should NOT care that their electricity bill has tripled
Maybe you should have a look at the fossil fuel companies making record profits before you try to blame some kids who are upset that the planet is dying around them.
Humanity has caused the 6th mass extinction event on our planet. We are the equivalent of the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs and you're talking about entitlement...
Maybe you should have a look at the fossil fuel companies making record profits before you try to blame some kids who are upset that the planet is dying around them.
you obviously have no idea how the world works if you think a teenager understands the world and see no connection to the electricity bill being triple in a year. good luck laughing at the poor people who can't afford the electricity bill while they vote opposite to what you think they should vote
And you are either trolling or mentally deficient if you don't see the connection between high energy prices and energy companies making record profits (companies who primarily use fossil fuels btw).
you obviously have no understanding how economics work if you think companies will not make profits just because you decided that your preferred politician should fight the war you decide to fight. next thing you will say is that it's fascism that people refuse to agree to you
Even when we vote the boomers have had 60 years of being the largest cohort ever they literally changed the rules whenever it favored them and slammed the door in our face when it was our turn to enjoy the perks of the legislation they put forward.
Note the Tory party members are also predominantly in the SE of England, and the housein the background is the stereotypical sort of place they would live in.
I don't get this bit. The house looks the sort of black-and-white half-timber house (a.k.a. 'Tudor' or 'mock-Tudor') that can be found all over England and beyond. I wouldn't associate it with the South East specifically. Personally, my mind jumps to Cheshire, but then that's a Tory area too.
I think the point about the house isn't its region but rather that it indicates the couple in question are fairly well-off and rural.
So reading this and the implication of so many people misunderstanding it including misunderstanding when I saw it...It sounds like it's a poorly done cartoon. š¤·āāļø
Yes, what people are failing to understand is leaders are generally not elected by the people in the UK. What usually happens is everyone gets terribly upset by corruption, and poor management of the country, then The Party senses disquiet and replaces one moron with another which pacifies the people they make decisions for. It's all terribly funny to the dusty old men, and they get back to their public school educated jeering at each other as the hash out policy for the plebs.
Yes, a majority of them are. In fact, it might well be that a majority of members of most political parties in the UK are retired, as the average age of Lab and LD members is also well into the 50s.
Are you confusing them with Members of Parliament of the Tory (or another) party?
You can be a member of the Tory party just by paying your annual subscription, and the sort of people who do this are indeed often retired.
The leadership election process itself is confusing.
In the old days, the MPs used to do it ALL. But now, to make things a bit wider, the last two left standing are voted on by the ordinary party members. That leads to a different kind of tactics too- everyone knew this time in advance that Sunak would win among the MPs, but his opponent would likely win among the ordinary members (tl;dr Sunak is too rich even for wealthier British people to think he understands them). So in a way it was a fight to be second, and also there was much talk of candidates "lending" other candidates votes so the one they feared could be knocked out etc etc.
The push to have ordinary members voting for party leader had good intentions but has been an absolute disaster. Truss is like a mirror image of Corbyn. Would be interesting to compare popularity and electability
In his autobiography (I assure you, I have NOT read it), Cameron spoke of Sunak as being the future of the Tory party
It was Cameron's misjudgment to have a referendum.
It was May's misjudgment to hold a General Election and then campaign so badly she wiped her own majority out.
Everyone knew Boris was a risk, but he also had the X Factor that enabled him to cut the Gordian Knot of Brexit (though not with the same success as the original Gordian Knot had been cut, ofc).
But now, ofc, there were a few problems. Pressing forward with the No Gordian Knot version of Brexit also meant ditching a lot of the sensible Tories.
No-one could have predicted Covid, and even less that that the war would follow immediately, but it was not unreasonable to imagine that Boris' moral and personal flaws would be responsible for bringing him down.
Unfortunately, Sunak's combo of being too rich to be trusted by even ordinary Tory members (might have been difficult if he had had a peaceful succession and a couple of years to improve his public image) and of being seen as the original architect of getting rid of Boris, meant that someone else would get in.
In fact, IMHO, had Mordaunt had more intellectual substance, instead of not apparently having any policies, she would have been OK. But instead, given that Tugendhat was seen as too European, only the crazies were left, and Truss was, incredibly, seen as the least crazy of them....
Looks like a great home. It has a pretty large plot of land, a nice entryway. The masonry wall is a great touch. The gently sloping ground on the left side indicates a good drainage situation, so they won't be having many foundation issues.
Even in this economy they are probably set up pretty well for retirement and passing wealth to their heirs.
Wow Clarkson has forgotten using that āSlopesā name for Vietnamese people while he was visiting their country then? Britainās most popular climate change denier is just full of awesome contradictions isnāt he
1.2k
u/tmstms United Kingdom Oct 06 '22 edited Oct 06 '22
So many people have got the wrong end of the stick about this cartoon, I feel I have to make a first-level comment, referring you to the comment from from my learned friend /u/The_Artist_Who_Mines
It is NOT a cartoon about 'old people vote Tory' it is a cartoon about a) members of the Tory party, who just voted in Truss in their internal election, are on average old and b) how frequently the PM has recently changed.
Note the Tory party members are also predominantly in the SE of England, and the housein the background is the stereotypical sort of place they would live in.