Active Travel

[forestboy]

4 minutes ago, HiVibes said:

So you accept there is a problem, tell us your solution to it.

A cull would be without doubt socially unacceptable but unless something is done now that sort of option becomes increasingly the only logical solution which is why I mention it, a huge amount of resources are spent on the over 70's but for what purpose, we all die in the end why needlessly extend for greatly diminished returns?

We certainly need to stop wasting resources on people who have willfully destroyed their health, if you chose to smoke and be a fat lazy arse and arrive in your 60's a complete mess with a litany of self induced conditions then really tough shit, don't expect the working young to bale you out.

If you are still fit enough to work you should work and pay full taxes, and any state benefits should be 100% means tested but also generous.

Back on topic active travel is a key part of this, your generation have allowed this island to become car centric and have chosen to live unsustainably without consequence and as such have put in place very bad habits for society. Active travel breaks those poor habits and takes us back to a more people centric society. the sort of place you lot all pine for but don't seem to realise you created all the problems.

NO I do not accept there is a problem other than you and your ever ending ranting 

[HiVibes]

4 minutes ago, forestboy said:

NO I do not accept there is a problem other than you and your ever ending ranting 

We have a completely unbalanced population with most resources skewed towards the elderly it should be the other way round.

Our Schools are massivley under resourced, young families can't make ends meet but we spend millions keeping old people going with little more than a pulse. 

[forestboy]

2 minutes ago, HiVibes said:

We have a completely unbalanced population with most resources skewed towards the elderly it should be the other way round.

Our Schools are massivley under resourced, young families can't make ends meet but we spend millions keeping old people going with little more than a pulse. 

More claptrap 🤐

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, HiVibes said:

Stating facts you find uncomfortable, is not a crusade, we need more vibrant energetic young people and less miserable elderly, how do you propose we solve this problem?

This is one of those rare examples where the less/fewer quibbling actually means something.  I agree we should have less miserable elderly, but not that there should be fewer of them.

There are all sorts of demographic challenges for the Island, none of which the Government shows the least sign of even understanding, never mind fixing.  But 'too many old people' may be simplifying things.

[Passing Time]

38 minutes ago, forestboy said:

More claptrap 🤐

He's full of it...

[HiVibes]

30 minutes ago, Passing Time said:

He's full of it...

Vitality.

[forestboy]

Shit/poo yes💩

[HiVibes]

4 minutes ago, forestboy said:

Shit/poo yes💩

Nursee is not coming, just do it in your Tena.

[forestboy]

24 minutes ago, HiVibes said:

Nursee is not coming, just do it in your Tena.

Guess you are still in nappies. 

[HiVibes]

5 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

This is one of those rare examples where the less/fewer quibbling actually means something.  I agree we should have less miserable elderly, but not that there should be fewer of them.

There are all sorts of demographic challenges for the Island, none of which the Government shows the least sign of even understanding, never mind fixing.  But 'too many old people' may be simplifying things.

Oh there should be much much fewer.

One way this could be achieved in the long term is by addressing the democratic deficit for young people, why is it for the first 16 years of a life a young person has no voting rights when they are the most important section of society and would vote for a better future?

And yet over 70's have a vote when they have absolutely no future. This deficit could be addressed by

- delgating an extra vote per child to parents ( bit messy)

- giving younger voters a double vote from ages 16 through to 32.

- take away the vote from those who have no interest in a future. ie over 65's

These sorts of measures would encourage young people to particiapte in politics make them feel valued and deliver future focussed policy, and as a by product no more old chuffs mining votes from old clueless dears who don't even know what year it is.

Edited November 27, 2022 by HiVibes

[Passing Time]

6 minutes ago, HiVibes said:

Oh there should be much much fewer.

One way this could be achieved in the long term is by addressing the democratic deficit for young people, why is it for the first 16 years of a life a young person has no voting rights when they are the most important section of society and would vote for a better future?

And yet over 70's have a vote when they have absolutely no future. This deficit could be addressed by

- delgating an extra vote per child to parents ( bit messy)

- giving younger voters a double vote from ages 16 through to 32.

- take away the vote from those who have no interest in a future. ie over 65's

These sorts of measures would encourage young people to particiapte in politics make them feel valued and deliver future focussed policy, and as a by product no more old chuffs mining votes from old clueless dears who don't even know what year it is.

as trolls go, you really are pitiful

[wrighty]

12 minutes ago, Passing Time said:

as trolls go, you really are pitiful

Don’t disagree with that, but the point about differential vote weights according to age could be quite interesting. One criticism of the Brexit vote was that people predominantly voting for it wouldn’t be around to experience the long term negative consequences. 
 

Not sure votes for children is the way to go, and I’m sure the Daily Mail would find a feckless breeder with 14 kids who could single handedly sway a constituency. 
 

But why stop at limiting the elderly from voting? How about banning the unemployed, anyone with a mental health diagnosis, women, Jews…

Has this been tried anywhere before?

It was Churchill that said that Democracy is a poor way of choosing a government, but better than all the rest. Or something like that. He was probably right. 

[HiVibes]

4 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Don’t disagree with that, but the point about differential vote weights according to age could be quite interesting. One criticism of the Brexit vote was that people predominantly voting for it wouldn’t be around to experience the long term negative consequences. 
 

Not sure votes for children is the way to go, and I’m sure the Daily Mail would find a feckless breeder with 14 kids who could single handedly sway a constituency. 
 

But why stop at limiting the elderly from voting? How about banning the unemployed, anyone with a mental health diagnosis, women, Jews…

Has this been tried anywhere before?

It was Churchill that said that Democracy is a poor way of choosing a government, but better than all the rest. Or something like that. He was probably right. 

Age cut offs is how the system works currently. Under 16 can't vote so why not take the average age of death and minus 16.to make it fair  it has nothing to do with discriminating based on race or gender.

[The Voice of Reason]

21 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Don’t disagree with that, but the point about differential vote weights according to age could be quite interesting. One criticism of the Brexit vote was that people predominantly voting for it wouldn’t be around to experience the long term negative consequences. 
 

Not sure votes for children is the way to go, and I’m sure the Daily Mail would find a feckless breeder with 14 kids who could single handedly sway a constituency. 
 

But why stop at limiting the elderly from voting? How about banning the unemployed, anyone with a mental health diagnosis, women, Jews…

Has this been tried anywhere before?

It was Churchill that said that Democracy is a poor way of choosing a government, but better than all the rest. Or something like that. He was probably right. 

Sorry Wrighty. I have to stop you right there. You say that one criticism of the Brexit vote was that people predominantly voting for it wouldn’t be around to experience the long term negative consequences. You quote negative consequences as though it were a matter of fact (like Remainers do) We haven’t even entered the medium,let alone the long term.

Well as with the referendum itself that’s where each have a matter of opinion.

Given a vote I would have gone for “leave” as I believe that would give my children and their descendants a better future in the medium to long term.

The weighting of votes is an interesting concept but this would equally have to apply to say another Scottish independence referendum, and even a UK general election ( notwithstanding that the result would only be for a maximum of five years, so maybe a lesser weighting?)

So yes given the complexities of weighted voting and the arguments that would ensue Churchill was indeed right.

 

Edited November 27, 2022 by The Voice of Reason

[HiVibes]

Average life expectancy is around 80 years old, so 64 as cut off is pretty lenient, if that were the way forward, though I prefer the idea of double voting rights for 16 - 32, as it really sets the right focus.