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.

user1471545174 I run a company and employ 35 people. I would also enjoy seeing JC in negotiations. He is a very experienced and stable politician. I did my research before the election and changed my opinion of him and Diane Abbott. I believe we can spend to kick-start the economy and a number of economists agree with me.
I have 4 children, 2 of whom are of an age to have voted in this election. They do not read newspapers - and this is a huge consideration in my view. Most of the main stream media is Conservative 'propaganda' and this is why their readers are so surprised by the outcome - and these clever young people recognise the bias and do not relate to the views expressed as fact in any way.

We wont miss most of those big companies if they do decide to leave GB, as they don't pay tax here anyway.
I want to pay more tax in order to properly fund the NHS, police and social care. Many wealthy people with private medical insurance mistakenly believe that they will be immune from the collapse of the NHS as a result but they forget that their insurance does not cover primary care (GPs), pre-existing conditions and emergency care - like heart attack, stroke or trauma. Sadly they believe that they will be able to pay for any surgery privately, without realising it is not accessible in the UK .

That means then that 50% of 35-44 year olds DID NOT vote labour!

Dont forget there are more than 2 parties - 50% not Labour does not equal 50% Tory, a lot of people in this age group that I know voted Green or Lib Dem.

Oh the irony of accusing young Labour voters of being enticed by a bribe...

Indeed. Voting in one's perceived economic self-interest is hardly unusual. Ask pensioners. It's somehow different when they vote themselves perks they've not paid for, though.

But I also think that having such a relatively huge increase in population, over a relatively short period of time, is from a micro town perspective at least, an inevitable public service burden. As you rightly say, it's a mammoth topic!

it doesn't need to be though. I am very critical of the EU, but a lot of the problems blamed on the EU are not solely the EUs fault, and housing is one of them. We have very restrictive planning laws here, with a dysfunctional "housing" system (now, it's more of an offshore money store that happens to house people) and neither of those are the fault of the EU.

My daughter just turned 18 and drove home from school in the middle of her A level exams to vote . Her school offer the study of Politics from the age of 16 . It is an international school with a mix of local students .She wasn't bribed by free uni tuition . It was the manifesto that appealed to her and that which she voted on .

Excellent post from sleeponeday a couple of pages back, btw.

anybody can write an appealing manifesto - we need to look at 1/4 youth unemployment in the eurozone, and find what labour's plans are to avoid that happening here - particularly pertinent with Brexit.

Keynesian pump priming is spending your way out of a recession - we've already done that, and have the borrowing to show for it. Sure we can spend a bit more on public services, borrow a bit more, tax a bit more but ultimately it has to be long term affordable - pump-priming is not supposed to be a day in, day out way to afford your services - it's not sustainable.

I don't think Corbyn IS being honest, or competent and he needs better challenge. You can get 129 economists to say 'austerity can be bad' that doesn't amount to good economic policy overall.

I don't think Corbyn IS being honest, or competent and he needs better challenge. You can get 129 economists to say 'austerity can be bad' that doesn't amount to good economic policy overall.

neither are being honest, but it's a mystery why the young think that Labour will solve the problem. Free tuition now? no pensions later. I am well above the young in age, and I expect not to have a pension. We aren't going to be able to afford any of these things.

As numerous posters have pointed out, there are several countries which do manage to afford more of these things by having a higher taxation burden, both on individuals and on corporations. The thing is that tax is an investment in your future, not someone nicking something from you.

we've already done that

No we haven't. The Tories have suffocated growth.

With just a bit of growth the picture gets much, much better.

The thing is, those supporting the Conservative Party are doing OK, they don't really give two hoots about growth. No more than they did with the Corn Laws.

I want to pay more tax in order to properly fund the NHS, police and social care.

Then feel free to do that. Nothing is stopping you. You can make charitable donations to good causes or you can make a voluntary payment to the Government.

Er, I don't think on its own my voluntary contribution will do much. I don't think what I can afford is going to enough to prop up the NHS. Now if a lot of people and businesses paid a bit more, that would make a difference. One pound from everyone in this country would make £65, 100,100. I can't manage that alone. (Disclaimer - I realise some of these people are under 18 etc. I'm not proposing this as a serious fund raising approach)

Zero hour contracts, struggle to buy a home, insecure working conditions etc.

Pensions? There won't be any pensions! I'm in my 40s and most of my peers have accepted that. It's like there is a different planet some people are on

I think voting to save 50k when you won't get a house or a job for life or a pension is pretty bloody astute actually

You do k ow there is a huge generational divide in wrath don't you

wealth not wrath...the joys of quick typing in between appointments

But outoftgesunset, if your view (with which I agree) is that your individual contribution makes no difference, surely you must also accept that your individual ability and willingness to pay more tax is similarly irrelevant. The issue is not whether it works for you, but whether it works for the country,
I really don't want to pay more tax, mainly because I devote most of my spare income to making provision for ds who has asd and will probably never be independent. When I hear people saying "I want to pay more tax therefore everyone else should" I want to hit them. Who are you to say that what you want to do with your money should be a decisive influence over what I am allowed to do with mine? Fuck off!!!

Wow Karlos that's a little strong

Am hoping my SEN kid will be independant one day so I'm sorry that your life is difficult I really am.

But I'm happy to pay more even though we don't use the state system as it was not equipt for our DC needs and if JC gets his way we will have pay to pay tax on school fees too

It's not just about our kids. It's about the whole of our society. That's as simple as I see it. Where I live the last two years has seen so many homeless on the street. School unable to pay for teachers. It's in my benefit that the society I live in works for all.

But societies like the Scandinavian countries and Germany etc show that increasing tax does work for countries as a whole. My view about whether I want to pay more is irrelevant to whether it works or not, frankly, as is yours.

Many people don't have the option to save their own money to care for vulnerable members of their family as they will never earn enough - that's why we have a social security system. My son is just revising for his GCSEs and he's been telling me about the 1906 Liberal social care reforms and the introduction of national insurance which were brought in precisely because many people can never save enough for hard times.

We are fortunate to have the right to vote to have policies that we agree with implemented, and our view on taxation is just one of the many, many issues that we have to try to square with our views on social policies, equality policies and so on.

Any taxation system can only operate with consent of majority otherwise you end up like Italy where it's regarded as optional!

And, by the way, Karlos, I've chosen to assume that the "Fuck off" was not directed at me personally but at anyone who thinks that increasing taxation in the interests of greater social benefits might be worth striving for.

And of course I understand that you, like lots of people, have particular very difficult issues to face that will make you assess things differently from me.

Of course. That's why it's one of the things we vote on.

I also think you need to bear in mind that saying to parents like me, who will likely have a need to support a child for life (and beyond if poss!) pay more now and deprive yourself of the ability to make provision yourself because it will make it better for everyone comes across as a little bit Marie Antoinette-ish.
Parents like me know what state provision for our kids is like and while the problems are partly down to money that's not the whole story. Culture and attitudes to disability plus the way in which public sector budgets are managed play a huge part. Throwing more money at unchanged cultures and structures won't cure the problems and in the meantime I've got a problem to deal with.
I've made my mind up - if the tax burden increases significant I'm off, assuming I remain in a line of work which permits that. Sorry but I need certainty on key issues now, not possible improvement tomorrow

Karlos what happens when you are no longer around for your ASD son?.
Serious question.

I have a son with ASD too and one of my biggest worries is what happens when I am no longer around.

What services will there be to support him?
How will he be supported to be part of the community?
What kind of safety net will there be for him if there is a crisis?

That is why we all need to pay more tax.

These services have been cut again and again and people have died because they have fallen through the net.

In 40 years time that could be your son...or mine. Unless we all accept that there have to be services for children like yours and mine.

One of the best things we can do is raise taxation...not just individual contributions but by persuing the companies ...the big companies who move money around to avoid paying their way.

Who knows...if they paid their way then you and I might not need to pay anymore tax.

And yes...culture and attitudes towards disability need to change

Karlos if you are able to up and leave and be financially secure and I assume have the ability to move to an EU or non EU country without visa issues I'm not going to feel sorry for you no matter how hard you flounce

Meanwhile I hope to be contributing to a society that helps the poor and needy as well as those who appear to be financially mobile and moan about paying more to help others.