2024 UK general election predictions and general discussion.

[Tom]

So why does legal, visa-based immigration, continue at the levels that it does?

The Conservative Party is lobbied and funded by businesses to open the floodgates of workers that will work for the UK minimum wage (and less in some cases). If this continues under Labour, who are largely funded by the Unions who should be protecting living standards, then our fate is certainly a locked-in erosion of living standards for the the vast majority of workers.

Simply put, why do we need to employ foreign nationals to do minimum wage jobs when we have circa 1.5 million people unemployed (and largely capable of working)? It's not about demonising the people that come here, I do not blame them for one second, it is about how the government is prepared to water down living standards - or at best supress potential growth for the average person.

regarding the GDP reduction, do you have any source for that, because I can't find anything but the opposite even from very anti-migration sources. It's usually mentioned as "migration increases GDP...but..."

And regarding wage suppression in certain sectors, why are these sectors still on the "skilled workers needed" list in our points based system? What's the reason for that, does anyone know?

With respect you're missing the key point - I said GDP per capita, i.e. per person. Of course with so many people coming into the country, more money is being generated and GDP for the entire country is going up, but that is spread across a rapidly increasing population. Take a look at this. Slight uptick in the last quarter, but look at the general trend since Brexit, after which immigration numbers exploded despite Brexiteers promises to the contrary.

And while I'm on the issue of living standards, why should a certain age group be guaranteed a 2.5% income rise even if the economy were to nosedive and inflation turns negative....other than the fact they are more likely to vote (and usually Conservative at that)?

 

[rob666]

Bring on the sixteen year old vote...should keep Labour in power for a decade or two.

 

[GaryH]

And while I'm on the issue of living standards, why should a certain age group be guaranteed a 2.5% income rise even if the economy were to nosedive and inflation turns negative....other than the fact they are more likely to vote (and usually Conservative at that)?

Peoples attitude change considerably the older you get and look forward to retirement. And why should pensioners get a guaranteed increase you ask... lets see... could it be because they are too old to work, have mobility issues, health issues, need to use the heating more than a younger person who doesn't feel the cold so much in the winter, cant go and work anymore because they have worked for most of their lives and are too infirm now to go and stack boxes in B&Q. Its not rocket science is it. The way we treat those who have worked all their lives, and while I'm at it, veterans in this country is just appalling. Its a pity there are some of the younger generation who think the opposite, but as they get older, and after 40 years of work no doubt their attitudes and realisation will change too.

What they should do however is look at whether people living in foreign countries should still be receiving the winter fuel payments, e.g. those living in warmer climates who don't need that extra money due to not having to use their heating in the winter months and give that money to those in this country living in fuel poverty.

 

[rob666]

Woah there, everybody in need should get that support, why focus just on the elderly...disabled people, young mums at home, do they not deserve index linking of support as well?
Lots of elderly people are very well off indeed, large numbers of my customers feel the triple lock is simply a gimmick, at least two have stated the money should go to those with greatest need.
Keep your triple lock if you must for those in greatest need, but means test it.
Some of my pensioner customers pay many (sixty!) thousands of pounds a year in tax.
Do they deserve the triple lock...do they hell!

 

[GaryH]

I believe disability allowances as with pensions are index linked. With regards young mums at home, the UK should look at other countries where mum's can put children into childcare facilities which would encourage them to go back to work and not financially penalise them for doing so.

As for well off pensioners, should they not be if they have worked hard for it all their lives?

 

[Benzin]

I don't think anyone my age believes they'll ever get a pension anyway.

Working till I die. Not through choice though.

 

[rob666]

Sunak on the BBC, two minutes ago...
Labour will now tax the old age pension.
Hmmm...who froze the tax allowance to make it happen then?

Politicians during elections...different levels of lying.
We can all blame Boris and Donald for turning up the lie level though.

 

[Matt N]

Peoples attitude change considerably the older you get and look forward to retirement. And why should pensioners get a guaranteed increase you ask... lets see... could it be because they are too old to work, have mobility issues, health issues, need to use the heating more than a younger person who doesn't feel the cold so much in the winter, cant go and work anymore because they have worked for most of their lives and are too infirm now to go and stack boxes in B&Q. Its not rocket science is it. The way we treat those who have worked all their lives, and while I'm at it, veterans in this country is just appalling. Its a pity there are some of the younger generation who think the opposite, but as they get older, and after 40 years of work no doubt their attitudes and realisation will change too.

What they should do however is look at whether people living in foreign countries should still be receiving the winter fuel payments, e.g. those living in warmer climates who don't need that extra money due to not having to use their heating in the winter months and give that money to those in this country living in fuel poverty.

No one is saying that pensioners don’t need caring for and don’t need benefits. There absolutely are some who rely on that triple lock and on those heating allowances and the like, and I fully support them getting those benefits. I will admit that I think pensioners are often unfairly demonised by people in my generation, and I don’t think they deserve to be “blamed” for any kind of situation my generation sees itself in.

I think the question is more about why pensioners are guaranteed a 2.5% income rise and all these extra benefits regardless of their means when no other demographic in the population is. Benefits like the triple lock being made universal ignores the fact that “pensioners”, like any demographic in society, are not a homogenous group with identical financial situations. Some pensioners will absolutely rely on these benefits to live, but for others, it will simply be added to a considerable pile of wealth, and they could probably live without the benefits.

As an example, my nan recently candidly confessed that her and my grandad “[had] money coming out of [their] eyeballs” and were “far richer in terms of disposable income than [they] ever were when working”. My nan is 68 and my grandad is 71, and they weren’t exactly high up the earning scale when they were of working age; my nan was a nurse in a care home, and my grandad retired at 28 (for a variety of reasons) and has not worked ever since. When my parents discussed it with them, it was reckoned that my nan and grandad had a greater disposable income than my parents, despite my parents’ combined annual salary being a little over £100,000, which I believe is quite a lot higher than my grandparents’ ever reached when they were of working age. When you consider that my parents’ combined salary is quite markedly above the national average, my nan and grandad’s disposable income would beat that of many more “average” earners by a greater amount.

With regard to many of the pensioner benefits they receive; I remember with one of the pensioner cost of living payments they received, my nan moaned that it only paid for one extra meal out rather than multiple!

I absolutely acknowledge that pensioners are disadvantaged in terms of age and infirmity compared to other demographics in the population. However, some pensioners also have their own financial advantages as well. Many pensioners will own their own home and not have a mortgage or rent to pay, unlike younger demographics. Many pensioners will not have dependent children living with them and consuming a considerable amount of money, unlike younger demographics. I accept that this isn’t the case for all pensioners, but this is the case for many.

The problem with the pensioner benefits is that unlike benefits in other demographics of society, they do not acknowledge means at all, and every pensioner is treated like the worst off regardless of their actual means. When other demographics in society are not treated to these universal benefits, I can maybe understand why resentment starts to breed, even if I do think pensioners are often unfairly demonised by people of my age.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

As for well off pensioners, should they not be if they have worked hard for it all their lives?

A taper system, similar to Universal Credit, could be introduced to offset the payments for well off pensioners, with healthy private pensions.

For those unfamiliar, for every £1 earned in take home pay (after tax and NI contributions), 55p is deducted off your Universal Credit allowance until you're earning enough to make the award nil.

For every £X paid monthly by a private pension, your state pension allowance is reduced by XXp.

 

[Matt N]

A taper system, similar to Universal Credit, could be introduced to offset the payments for well off pensioners, with healthy private pensions.

For those unfamiliar, for every £1 earned in take home pay (after tax and NI contributions), 55p is deducted off your Universal Credit allowance until you're earning enough to make the award nil.

For every £X paid monthly by a private pension, your state pension allowance is reduced by XXp.

With that, though, there is the argument that pensioners have paid their years of National Insurance regardless of earnings, so should be entitled to a state pension regardless of their earnings from a private pension.

 

[rob666]

With that, though, there is the argument that pensioners have paid their years of National Insurance regardless of earnings, so should be entitled to a state pension regardless of their earnings from a private pension.

But Matt, everybody paying nat ins for decades knows it is for the pensions and sickness of people now, not for "their future".

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

With that, though, there is the argument that pensioners have paid their years of National Insurance regardless of earnings, so should be entitled to a state pension regardless of their earnings from a private pension.

That's a problem with how you pitch National Insurance. You can still get a state pension, even if you haven't worked, through pension credit. National Insurance isn't ring fenced for the pension pot anymore, or health care, and even if it were it wouldn't cover the pensions bill alone. DWP spend almost 4 times as much on pensions alone, than the rest of benefits combined.

You only pay National Insurance if you're earning more than £533 per month.

Theoretically National Insurance also pays for Universal Credit, so by your argument everyone should be entitled to universal credit, which they are. It's tapered off depending on how much you earn. It's logically the same system in practice.

 

[rob666]

And to put things bluntly, in another couple of decades, with the demographic shift moving over to late middle age, the pension pot will be completely and utterly screwed, without a doubt.
Bring on voluntary euthanasia for those that desire it, and save the nations economy in terms of nhs and pensions collapse.
Seen it with my own eyes at length over the last few years.

Back on topic, lurch to the right in France and Hungary, as well as the focus on Farage the racist.
Bring on voting day, bring on the vote for sixteen year olds.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

bring on the vote for sixteen year olds.

I agree that enfranchising 16 year olds is way overdue, but I don't think it's going to secure Labour's future for as long as you do. 16 -18 year olds are vastly more likely to lean left wing, yes, but the left vote is split and arguably Labour right now isn't appealing to an idealistic left voter. 16 year olds are less likely to vote tactically than those who are middle aged. For the system to have the intended effect you'll have to introduce PR, but then you start giving a legitimate voice and platform to the extremists.

Democracy, who ever decided that was a good idea?

 

[Matt N]

And if you look at other countries in Europe, as well as the USA, the right have a surprising following among younger voters. Britain is quite an outlier in terms of our main right wing party, the Tories, being largely abandoned by young voters.

Recent right-wing victors such as Giorgia Meloni in Italy, Marine Le Pen in France and the new government in the Netherlands have a fair young following, and over in the States, a fair percentage of young voters are planning to vote for Donald Trump in the impending election. Even in Britain, I recently read a news article about how Reform UK and Nigel Farage are gaining a modest young following.

The Tories are quite an outlier in having practically alienated the young audience. And this is a relatively recent phenomenon; I was reading that even back in 1997 when the Conservatives were wiped out by Blair, something like 30% of 18-24 year olds still voted Conservative. The expected equivalent figure in 2024 is 7%.

I have my suspicions that some of this may be down to the Tories having been the only governing party we’ve ever known for many of us younger voters. While I was 7 when David Cameron was first elected, and I do vaguely remember hearing about David Cameron and Nick Clegg forming the coalition on the news, I have no memory of Gordon Brown or the New Labour government being in power. The first election campaign I properly remember was 2015. With this in mind, the young may partially hate the Tories because they’ve been the only governing party we’ve ever known. Once the governing baton has been passed to Labour, the tables may turn.

With this in mind, I don’t think that opening the vote to 16 year olds will necessarily favour the left and keep Labour in power forever in the way that the Tories and the like are claiming.
EDIT - Here are some interesting stats for you all regarding the Tories’ declining vote share among the young being a recent phenomenon: https://www.itv.com/news/2024-04-16...pport-among-young-people-is-ticking-time-bomb

In 2024, it is forecast that 14% of 18-24 year olds will vote Tory, while 61% will vote Labour. This is a 47-point Labour lead.

In 1997, when Blair won his landslide, 27% of 18-24 year olds voted Tory, while 49% voted Labour. This was only a 22-point Labour lead.

In 2010, when Cameron won for the first time and formed the coalition, 30% of 18-24 year olds voted Tory, 30% voted Labour, and 30% voted Lib Dem, so there was no Labour lead over the Tories whatsoever and there was a perfect 3-way tie between Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems.

With this in mind, the stark unpopularity of the Tories among the young compared to other demographics seems to have been a very recent phenomenon.

 

[shakey]

Votes for 16 year olds ?

Most would vote how their parents tell them. They also have no adult life experiences to draw their conclusions on. And my 16 (soon to be 17) year old would probably just vote for the candidate with the funniest name. Actually I may adopt that strategy myself !

Although to be fair, at the May election just gone, one guy turned up with his 18 year old son who was voting for the first time. They went to the voting booths and the son asked, "What do I do dad".... I was about to tell the dad off for giving advice until he turned round to his son and said "Just put a cross in any box, it won't make the slightest bit of difference"

And that is probably the truest statement about elections that you are likely to hear !!

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Votes for 16 year olds ?

Most would vote how their parents tell them. They also have no adult life experiences to draw their conclusions on. And my 16 (soon to be 17) year old would probably just vote for the candidate with the funniest name

If you're considered old enough to join the armed forces at 16, and 'serve' your country, you ought to be able to have say in who you're serving and how they're governing. It was this argument which lowered the voting age in the US, as a result of conscription into Vietnam and created universal male suffrage (for those aged 21) in 1918 in the UK. Any male, who had turned 19 during service in connection with the First World War, was also given the right to vote.

 

[shakey]

If you're considered old enough to join the armed forces at 16, and 'serve' your country, you ought to be able to have say in who you're serving and how they're governing. It was this argument which lowered the voting age in the US, as a result of conscription into Vietnam and created universal male suffrage (for those aged 21) in 1918 in the UK. Any male, who had turned 19 during service in connection with the First World War, was also given the right to vote.

I am assuming there is some rule that they cannot see any combat of any kind at that age ?

I think 18 is a reasonable age to be able to vote. It is the age where you are considered an adult in most areas, including a court of law.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

They do not see frontline service until they're 18, but can do second line. We are the only country in Europe to recruit minors.

After their first six months, minors are committed to remaining in the forces until turning 22. Whereas an adult commits to serve for four years, a minor is committed for four years from his/her 18th birthday – up to six years in total. Although members of the armed forces cannot legally be deployed on the frontline until they turn 18, once they become adults they continue to serve based on a commitment they made as a minor with no opportunity to reassess this commitment as an adult.

Source: https://www.parliament.uk/globalass...fing_from_Forces_Watch_age_of_recruitment.pdf

At the age of 16 you're also allowed to work a full time job, and be taxed as such. Taxation, without representation, has been the root cause, catalyst and final straw of many a rebellion.

If you're legally considered old enough to procreate, pay tax and serve in the armed forces, you should be enfranchised to vote.

 

[Matt N]

On a different note; I’m seriously pondering watching the election unfold on Thursday night into Friday morning. Seeing as I finished university in May and am not starting my Master’s course until September, I have literally nothing to get up for or need sleep for on Friday morning.

I’d be interested to know; if anyone’s watched election coverage before, what is the most interesting time of the coverage in terms of watching things unfold? I’m pondering whether to sleep for some of the night and then watch the most interesting bit or whether to just bite the bullet and stay up all night for this one occasion.

I’ll definitely tune in for the exit poll at 10pm, but I’m not sure whether to just tune in for the whole night after that or whether to sleep for a bit and tune in at a specific interesting time in terms of seat declarations.

And do you reckon it’s actually worth watching the election unfold in real time? Is it exciting, and worth staying up for? I once stayed up until 3am to livestream the Golden Ticket Awards from America when I was 12, and I’ve never been so underwhelmed…