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.

YouTube?

No of course not Lady but some people would like to feel better represented.

theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/28/elitism-in-britain-breakdown-by-profession

"Just 7% of the UK public attended private school, which compares to 71% of senior judges, 62% of senior armed forces officers, 55% of Whitehall permanent secretaries and 50% of members of the House of Lords.

The rate is also disproportionately high in other influential roles: 44% of people on the Sunday Times Rich List, 43% of newspaper columnists and 26% of BBC executives were all educated privately.

Just one in 100 members of the UK public was educated at Oxbridge, however graduates from those two universities make up 75% of senior judges, 59% of cabinet posts, 57% of permanent secretaries, 50% of diplomatics, 47% of newspaper columnists, 44% of public body chairs and 33% of BBC executives.

One in four MPs is an Oxbridge graduate as well as 12% of those on the Sunday Times Rich List."

No, not just like us individually, but it is good to have a wide range of experiences and backgrounds to make up the overall representation.

Whilst it would be no bad thing if there was more diversity in politics I think that you are missing the point.

When people say they can not relate to politicians it is not just about their social class and background (although this does not help).

It is a way of speaking and language that they adopt. The way they are trained to move their hands as they speak. Theresa May during the campaign is a perfect example of how not to communicate to people if you want them to be able to relate to you. She didn't answer questions but just spoke in soundbites. Sometimes it is about appearing honest and fallible and it is even sometimes about admitting your mistakes.

Also, have you considered that the child of an "ordinary" person could well end up going to a "top" university and taking up a career in banking? One of the wealthiest people I know is an investment banker. His parents ran a corner shop.

Well, quite. It's not as though everyone in finance, medicine and law went to elite public schools. Far from it. Plenty of "ordinary people" (for which read state educated?) of immense intelligence and expertise around. So why do we have so many toffs in parliament?

A parliamentary career is a bit precarious - as we have seen!

I suppose it can attract those who are a) not bothered about earning "only" £74K - toffs/bankers and b) those who are thrilled to be earning £74K - "I left school at 16" types. (Bit of a generalisation, but a bit of truth, too!)

Who it doesn't attract are those who have reached a certain income and cannot risk losing it or dropping to £74K - engineers, doctors, accountants, lawyers etc etc. These may well be state-educated but do not have a monied background so rely on earnings.

that didn't make sense: what I'm trying to say is that they may be in elite jobs and have had an elite education in the form of Oxbridge, but £74K is not an elite salary, especially when you can be out on your arse after a snap election!

I try not to be racist or classist. I try to accept people for what they are regardless of their education or lack of it. If they have good hearts then that's fine by me

Some of our most famous philanthropists have been very rich and vice versa. e.g. Hugh FW is a good guy regardless of his accent.

£74k pa plus generous expenses is quite liveable to anyone half-way established, IF they have a genuine public service motivation. Bearing in mind that two income households are now the norm (as compared to the 70s, for e.g.) and a political career, especially a high-flying one, pays dividends later in post-political career terms.

Yes ppeat but surely parliament should reflect society? So 7% privately educated, 50% female, 15% BAME and so on?

Well yes it SHOULD Serf but how many average people have the time and inclination to sit on their backsides all day and sometimes all night, listening to boring people who go on and on and on (despite their educational background) That's why few women are there , they just don't fancy it!

Ha

I don't think the enthusiasts would describe it quite like that!

dosnt explain why they voted for the honest corbyn you know the man that sat on the floor of a train and said there were not seats available and then it emerged there was. saying the labour membership was the highest its ever been in 2016 which wasnt true he said hed gained seats in the welsh elections not true

TM the most honest woman in politics; the woman who talks and talks, and talks ; see above! She doesn't have the guts to go on a telly pre electoral programme with everyone else, she doesn't DO anything but cock everything up.

View of an oldie. For twenty years UK voters have put in power governments that have the same basic agenda, cut the public sector, reduce taxes. As Riversleep posted, the majority of voters haven't done well out of that. Not surprising they want a change.

The owner of the Mail, Lord Rothermore, lives in France, doesn't pay UK tax. The owners of the Telegraph live in the Channel Islands and don't pay UK tax. The owner of the Sun, Times and most of Sky lives in New York and doesn't pay UK tax – doesn't stop him popping over here to tell his mates what to do. The owner of the Independent is Russian. That doesn't seem right to me.

Now there's an even bigger problem on the horizon. Some of OH's friends receive housing benefit as only have State Pension, thus when landlords buy up their houses and increase the rent the State will pay. The number of pensioners renting will increase, particularly as those yet to by their own house get to pensionable age.

The unfairness of our system. Private schools are considered charities and therefore don't pay business rates. State schools do, says today's Times.

Generally I accept private education, I just wish Eton would take the supposedly intelligent ones that go there and show them how to run a country.

I know May went to a Grammar school but thought she was supposed to be intelligent.

There's a bit of a question mark around whether Theresa May actually passed the 11+. She went private till she was 13, then possibly slid into the grammar through a back door. No one can seem to get a straight answer.

bluegreenyellowareyoueecummings

I think its just...for so long both Tories and Labour have seemed pretty much the same. No other party really stands a chance so there that...'they are all lying bastards' way of thinking going on. 'New Labour' were pretty much Tories, lets be honest.

Corbyn has taken the Labour party back to the left, and people appreciate that and all of a sudden its worth voting because the parties are NOT the same anymore.

He has done so well to get the youth voting too. Every younger person I know seems to bloody love him. A group of 18 of my brothers uni friends stood outside in the pouring rain for 4 hours to listen to Corbyn speaking. Its bizarre. But on a good way

StillDrivingMeBonkers

My DCs didn't vote Labour. They have aspirations. They also believe in supporting themselves. They have personal pride.
Don't tar all the youth with the same brush

^^^ Personal pride?? Sounds like you've been busy brain washing them when they young.

Have aspirations?
My eldest and his partner have aspirations, earn very good money and are in their mid twenties. Home owners and nearly paid their tuition fees off.
They voted labour because they don't mind paying a bit more into the pot and want a more equal society.
In the area that turned red for the first time in over a hundred years.

Totally agree with you HorneyTortoise.

We've long needed a proper Opposition to whoever was in power. It curbs excesses which is hard when all are singing from the same hymn sheet.

I would like to think the worst if the benefit measures (I am talking about sanctions for stupid reasons) would never have got through had there been a proper Opposition and not a delegate of so called opposition MPs politely applauding the policy.

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

Trust?

As if no politician ever lied.

Imagine how disillusioned they'd be when that twat JC either has no money to pay for everything he promised or ruins ordinary people with colossal tax rises.

And. There is a magic money tree; since 2009 the Bank of England has grown £453,000,000,000 of it but decided to give it to the bankers not nurses.

For once a really good article in the Guardian.

Okay; before I say this, I've pointed out lots on here that the evidence is clear that, historically, Labour are NOT worse at managing the nation's finances; the stats are plain. I'm not a Tory, and I would no more vote for them than fly. That said, the quoted article is financially illiterate.

What she's talking about is quantitative easing, which people went ballistic about, as it was "printing money!" and would therefore lead to massive inflation. That showed a fundamental misunderstanding of modern finance.

In the past, trying to boost the economy by pouring in money tended to devalue the currency and cause inflation, yes. That was the reason money used to be linked to the price of gold (the gold standard) and you could literally rock up at the bank and get the money changed for a chunk of shiny. In Ballet Shoes Streitfield talks about the Fossils having gold sovereigns, worth a little more than base ones because of the inherent value. Once they stopped doing that, currencies could go off the deep end.

When they decided to inflate our economy in the global economic crisis, they decided the best way to do it was to increase liquidity and get the markets moving, and they did that via, as has been said, a magic money tree which bought up financial assets from the private sector with money that did not previously exist. This was done not because they were keen to help banks out, but because if inflation began to rise at unmanageable levels, the bank could sell those assets off, and then delete the money, which would immediately deflate the economy again.

Buying financial assets meant the bank was able to keep control of it, and recall it again if the economic circumstances demanded that. It was a built-in brake against hyper-inflation, and anyone who knows anything about the Weimar Republic - the financial collapse that led to Nazi rule, when people had to cart their rent in wheelbarrows because notes had so little worth - knows how essential that was. If the money had been spent on public services, and especially in pay packets, it would not be recallable. It would be gone. And so, therefore, would the built-in safeguard of being able to delete the fruits of the magic money tree.

It was the only way to save the economy without risking even bigger problems down the track.

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".

The sad thing is they can't trust Corbyn. There's a reason 70s style control policies were abandoned - because they led to sluggish economies and few jobs. 1/4 youngsters in the EI is unemployed. Ask yourself why.

Corbyn is offering a dream from yesteryear. We need a compromise - a bit more spending, a bit more tax, targeted free tuition for socially useful degrees like teaching and nursing.

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/we-must-seek-consensus-to-avoid-a-disastrous-and-destructive-stalemate-gdj2rmh88