To think that young people came out in record numbers for one simple reason that most people are missing?

[PumpkinPiloter]

I believe that young people came out in record numbers because they wanted to vote for someone they could trust.

TM like many politicians before her see no problem in going back on her word. She is not alone in this and politicians have been guilty of this from both the right and left side of politics.

Despite your reservations or views on JC it is clear he has not gone back on his word since being elected as the leader of the opposition. He has stood by his word and fought a campaign based on policies he believed in and refused to use dirty smear tactics.

Perhaps people generally are sick of being lied to and electing politicians that seem to showmen/careerists first and representatives of the people second.

*EU.

Think these youngsters just want the same as what people who were lucky enough to go to university before the 90s (when tuition fees became a thing). Yet the people of that generation (not all of them) want the young to "pay for themselves".

Completely agree. It makes me wince, to be honest. As do people sneering that, "it's idealism versus realism, and realism gets things done!" Universal free education for children at all was once idealism. So was the end of slavery, and of child labour. Universal suffrage, no matter your income or sex, was once sneered at as idealism. Old age pensions were seen as pie in the sky idealism. Women having the right to own property. The NHS's mere existence. State funding for university education, even without grants and paid fees. Legal aid. The police force. All idealistic ideas people once fought for.

We all live infinitely better lives because people got idealistic in the past. Since when did history grind to a halt, and improvement become unnecessary?

People are so disillusioned - voting for a certain party or voting remain because it's the PC thing to do. In 10 years - maybe sooner, wait and see how much more mess this country will be in because people are literally getting away with murder! The Slovakian family who live close to me have 8 children and have just been to register their last child's birth - their 11 yr old daughter had to have a day off school to help because they speak no English. The amount of benefits they are on is unreal + a house in a good area close to good schools etc they earn more than me via their benefits when I work full time. The UK is an utter joke.

StillDrivingMeBonkers Wow.....Just wow

I think you are right. TM avoided all questions, in fact her performance was rather shameful considering she wanted to electorate to vote for her. I think this is a terrible time to be young and can't imagine how today's young generation will ever be able to buy themselves a home.

My dcs are good, kind and very hard working. They would like a world where everyone is looked after a little better and where looking after one another is a consensus. JC offered that and - without the media filter which has always demonised him - he came across as honest and calm and reasonable.

Your message seems to be tarring all those who vote for Labour as not having aspirations and no personal - think there was more to it than that. They have a v bleak future ahead of them if they don't get certain starts in life - middle class parents - private schooling - university paid for by parents....... Maybe they just looked at the society which has been created for them by their elders and didn't like what they saw..... Maybe they didn't want their future chances to live and work abroad taken from them. Maybe they saw the current government as totally corrupt and without morals and voted for change.

Think these youngsters just want the same as what people who were lucky enough to go to university before the 90s (when tuition fees became a thing). Yet the people of that generation (not all of them) want the young to "pay for themselves".

None of these youngsters are old enough to remember Tony Blair in 1997 promising to invest in education education education and the first thing he did was impose university tuition fees.

Not Tories, Labour.

That's odd lola, why would a slovakian family be getting benefits here? Have they passed the HBT? Or are they refugees, in which case why would you resent their right to benefits?

(Sorry, HRT).

Not Tories, Labour. Wasn't Labour that increased it threefold though, was it.

Yes they did increase three fold under labour.

They started at 1k and labour trebled them to 3k. They woukd have kept increasing them make no mistake.

But lets be clear they did it first.

dont believe that, think it was all the talk of free uni, free student loans, free everything, non of my children voted labour.

Corbyn has opened some good debate, but more needs to be understood about the long term unaffordability of his policies without much higher taxes, and the balancing act between imposing costs on firms and driving them under.

Corbyn's manifesto has no plan for private sector growth, or dealing with the economic consequences of hard Brexit.

Incidentally half of 35 to 44 year olds voted labour. Perhaps its just not the young who would ike a bit of hope

None of these youngsters are old enough to remember Tony Blair in 1997 promising to invest in education education education and the first thing he did was impose university tuition fees.

Uh huh. Of course, even leaving aside the difference between a thousand pounds and nine thousand pounds, that does fail to mention the Institute of Fiscal Studies report:

Public spending on education in the UK grew rapidly during the 2000s. Over the decade between 1999–2000 and 2009–10, it grew by 5.1% per year in real terms, the fastest growth over any decade since the mid-1970s. As a result, it rose from 4.5% of national income in 1999–2000 to reach a high point of 6.4% in 2009–10. Going forwards, we estimate that public spending on education in the UK will fall by 3.5% per year in real terms between 2010–11 and 2014–15. This would represent the largest cut in education spending over any four-year period since at least the 1950s, and would return education spending as a share of national income back to 4.6% by 2014–15.

And then there are the proposed imminent cuts, which can be calculated on a per school basis here.

Blair kept that promise, however you want to spin it.

And before anyone says that Labour spent crazily, blahdy blahdy blah - they actually ran an economic surplus for four of their years in power (a feat the current government have never achieved, despite our not being in recession) and broke even the year before the global financial crisis. It's an odd fact that income is less than expenditure at a time of government austerity, when it was the opposite under the 'spendthrift' Labour government.

Meant to add this in - www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-2017-labour-won-50-per-cent-vote-35-44-year-olds-conservative-poll-jeremy-corbyn-a7786056.html

Apologies FreeNiki, they did. However, the levels they are at now are crazy. Stating that they would have continued increasing them is pointless, we don't know that, particularly as the current Labour party plan to abolish them.

The current labour party plan has no funds available for £9bn in free student fees.

He said it just to get votes.

Myths about the economy

apathy, 20 people who work with my DH failed to vote, although all complain about the MPs they hadnt got time couldnt be bothered, some of them are young, some in their early 30s some in their 50s. JC didnt actually win, TM got more seats just not enough, for the magic majority. I have voted for different parties throughout my lifetime, none realistic,had some very good local MPs

people are literally getting away with murder! The Slovakian family who live close to me have 8 children and have just been to register their last child's birth - their 11 yr old daughter had to have a day off school to help because they speak no English. The amount of benefits they are on is unreal + a house in a good area close to good schools etc they earn more than me via their benefits when I work full timE

You do realise that even if the benefits bit is true, it doesnt mean they are 'literally' getting away with murder

Excuse me, Stilldrivingmebonkers... my son is extremely successful in his chosen field and he voted Labour. DS2 is studying hard at sixth form and would've voted Labour, had be been old enough.

DD has special needs, but is in FE. She volunteers and is an active member of a local community. I explained the manifestos of each party in simple terms and she chose to vote Labour too.

Does aspiring mean just looking out for yourself? If it does, I'm glad my children are community minded as well as hard working.

Anything which spurs people to have an opinion and use their vote can only be a good thing. I get more annoyed by the non voters to be honest.

He's a lot more trustworthy than most MPs. I think he tells the truth, sticks to his word and isn't out for all he can get. I think lots of people voted Labour because of him alone. However I didn't vote for him because I can't trust anybody that thinks brexit is a good idea.

I am privately educated. I work school hours in an office at a pretty boring job but we need my income to pay the mortgage. Dh works nights in a care home. I'm not sure how you'd class us, but actually I've not minded a bit of austerity. Nevertheless, in the past I've voted Green. I could not have voted Tory this time because even if I'd liked their other policies, Theresa May's comment that she had 'no problem with fox hunting' meant that, for me, I could not have voted for her. A vote for her would have been a vote for tearing a fox apart with my bare hands, (or letting a pack of dogs do it for me). No thanks.

So that left me with a choice between Labour and the Green party. For the first time in all my 50 years, I voted tactically, and went for Labour.

I am neither young, nor looking for handouts, but at the very least, I feel Jeremy Corbyn has some integrity, peculiarly displayed as it sometimes is.