Jeremy Paxman says 'no votes for pensioners'

I think you'll find that its remainers that constantly moan about leavers being stupid and fouling up the vote!! I agree we need to move on from that particular record.

.....well, my vote certainly turned out to be worthless because I'm an elitist snowflake [amongst other things] . And, to be quite honest, I'm sick of hearing leavers moaning about being branded as stupid; time to move on from that, methinks...

Well it's certainly been widely suggested that brexit only came about by the uneducated, ill informed, racist,prejudiced homophobic voting for various nefarious reasons without any intellectual foundation whatsoever, much to the fury of remainers. Of course this isn't true, but unless you are an intellectual your vote, unless it was for remain, was worthless.

niggly you posted Presumably only the university educated can vote in a GE as well?!! Not sure that those suffergette ladies who went through all that trauma all those years ago would agree!
I just pointed out that this was not true. Many of them would have thoughtit entirely acceptable.
You now think Yes, but at the end of the suffrage movement votes for both men and women were universal regardless of education
No they weren't. Only women over 30 with property could vote in 1918. Equal voting with men was only acheived in 1928 when the women's suffrage movement was no more!

Jalima 19.57

"He's suffering from the prejudice of his own guilt at his life-long good fortune."

I think that happens to many .

I asked you before, niggly, who said that?
You are making it up.

Nobody I know beleives that.

Yes, but at the end of the suffrage movement votes for both men and women were universal regardless of education. Presumably you now feel that the clock should be turned back and only people of a certain educational standard should be allowed the vote?!! I can't quite see any government going down that path and I'm amazed that so called democrats seriously believe this.

There have been a lot of posts about the suffragettes and a lot of mis-guided information about what they wanted. Many of them were middle-class ladies who believed they should have the vote on the same basis as their men did and certainly did not believe the working class should vote. The Women's Labour League a short lived organisation (!906-1918) was one of the few women's organisations that campaigned for universal suffrage.

Who has said that, niggly?

Supposed intellectual superiority is reminiscent of the snobbery of the so called ruling classes towards people considered their inferiors all those years ago and equally patronising, condescending and frankly unpleasant. To imply that anyone who hasn't been through higher education is somehow intellectually unable to give a rational opinion on serious matters owing to lack of education is actually quite outrageous and flies in the face of full democracy. Presumably only the university educated can vote in a GE as well?!! Not sure that those suffergette ladies who went through all that trauma all those years ago would agree!

I think the point is that he is judging everyone else by his own standards Wally, ie we are all supposed to have gone to public school, then free places at Oxford or Cambridge, followed by plum jobs on huge salaries courtesy of licence-fee payers enabling us to all buy country houses and live a life of luxury.
Unfortunately, that isn't true for many people of retirement age whose pensions may have been decimated, who may still have a mortgage and could still be working.

He is a now going through a belated 'mid-life crisis' and has presumably upset his friends and family by his behaviour.

He's suffering from the prejudice of his own guilt at his life-long good fortune.

Paxman has a right to say what he did, just as you have the right to disagree.
He'd like to restrict the vote; you'd like to restrict free speech. What's the difference?

Not exactly unbiased is he, lemon. Not surprised you are reading a book by someone who worked for Major and Kenneth Clarke, and who writes for the Telegraph.

I disagree with Paxman but then I would wouldn't I as I am over 65. I worked full time until I was 70 so I think I earned my right to vote. As older people we have experience of life and can see that by doing certain things certain things will happen the young can't. Paxman is cocooned from reality by the money he has earned and therefore has no right to say what he said.

Getting back to Paxo, he will no doubt be voting until the day he dies, and so should all of us.

It all comes down to some who voted Remain, being so incensed at the outcome, that they have to cast about for ‘reasons’ that the Leave side voted that way.It pleases them to think they are superior in some way to Leave voters.
Am just reading an excellent book, ‘Making a Success of Brexit’ by the economist Roger Bootle.I expect he is ‘thick’ or ‘misguided’ as well.?

Isn't control and suppression linked to fascism? Your way (with your supposed superior quality of reasoning) or no way?

You should try reading what I actually say, Day6 before shooting your mouth off.

Note my very last sentence

"And my comment to POGS was an observation of reality, not an expression of any desire to restrict the franchise. That's the last thing I'd want."

The Smiths could just as easily have had intellectual conversations about it before they voted. My parents quite often did, and my dad was a busdriver. A very well read busdriver.
I didn't agree with them most of the time, but they were still intellectual conversations.

People do have lots of different opinions Day6 and the referendum has suddenly convinced many that their opinion is a truth.

I don't think you can start selecting who votes and who doesn't on the basis of being over 65 or anything else. The problem was that we used a very simplistic form of voting for a very complex question. The only way to balance this and make everyone feel their 'opinion' counted would be another referendum on the deal - when they finally sort one out. Then we would be voting on the actuality and not someone's fantasy whatever view they support.

Why could the Smiths not have done the same?

Do you REALLY not have the answer to that question DJ?

GN alone is proof that many people have lots of opinions. However, not all Gransnetters have time or love for the politics forum. Wouldn't you say that is true in life too?

When I was younger the political news wasn't of any burning interest to me. We form opinions along the way. Having an in depth knowledge of the machinations of the EU was not a requirement before voting. General observations about trade, borders, immigration, the cost of the EU etc were held by all those I spoke to before the referendum.

We didn't have to sit an examination before being given the right to vote.

Sorry, but your examples are guilty of doing what you say is wrong; you are saying it's only the intellectual political analysts who weighed up the pros and cons.
Why could the Smiths not have done the same?

it has a lot to do with the quality of the reasoning which informs the vote.

Maizie, having voted in various elections (and a referendum) over the years it's pretty obvious that the 'quality of reasoning' doesn't really matter. The democratic process does.

No one asks us to explain our vote, ever. The ballot paper is for my eyes only, and is my business..

If Mrs Bloggs had written a treatise on the nature of the European Parliament before voting it doesn't make her vote any more valid than Mrs Smith's, who had watched the telly the night before the referendum and taken an instant dislike to Jean Claude Junker's attitude.

Mr Bloggs hates garlic and the French, so voted out, Mr Smith liked his local MEP because he played golf with him, so voted in.

Their neighbour always drove BMWs and liked skiing, so voted remain, but on the other side their neighbours, both political analysts with two adult children voted to leave because they had frequent discussions and had weighed up the pros and cons of being in the EU.

They all got to vote In or Out.

Are you really saying that we have to explain why we voted as we did and that if our reasoning isn't heavy duty (or we haven't done in-depth research) we have no right to vote?

Should we now have to explain ourselves in the voting booths before we post our voting slip?

Not one Remain voter on here has convinced me I was wrong to vote Leave, and as you know the discussions have been many and varied. Their reasons for remaining do not convince me they are right. I voted differently. Would you deny me the vote because we don't think alike?

Isn't control and suppression linked to fascism? Your way (with your supposed superior quality of reasoning) or no way?

Maizie how can you write the above with a straight face, when the idea of denying the franchise to those over 65, came form the very well educated and erudite Jeremy Paxman.

You know, MOnica, I find it very hard to take this topic at all seriously. I don't for one moment think that Paxman meant it at all seriously; he was taking part on a formal debate; these things are arguments for the sake of argument, participants don't even have to agree with the stance they're arguing from. It's not a place where you set out your manifesto for changing the world.

It's quite sad really watching everyone getting all hot under the collar about something that is (DV) never going to happen.

And my comment to POGS was an observation of reality, not an expression of any desire to restrict the franchise. That's the last thing I'd want.

Who has actually said that, POGS?