BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

TailWindHome

Well-Known Member
Mine doesn't
 
OP
OP
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Timewaster
Not much of a consolation, @TailWindHome

1772967845671.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R
OP
OP
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Timewaster
Six years ago, in New Zealand...

sbzubz6bfl2l3aexl2hdyelsdjtidmux3xshd34o7wofmec4ti.jpg
 
OP
OP
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Timewaster
One for Rick Chasey, and the generational divide... (plus a bonus Brexit reference)

https://www.theguardian.com/inequal...all-pies-john-lanchester-truth-generation-gap

" it seems to me fair to say that there is an unfair settlement between the generations in the UK. The first and most glaring reason is laid out in that 2011 report from the OBR. The old today are getting much more from the state than the young ever will. There is a rightwing critique of state pension schemes that claims they are a Ponzi scheme. That’s because payments into the system aren’t invested now to be paid out in the future, but immediately disbursed on current spending, much of it to elderly people. Pensioner spending is 48.3% of the welfare budget, excluding disability spending and spending on health, and all those numbers are going to increase as our population ages."

"Yes, there is intergenerational inequality in property ownership. But one day the boomers will die, and then their children will inherit their wealth, much of it property-based. It’s already begun to happen, and it’s being called “the largest intergenerational transfer of wealth ever”. That Imperial College work I cited earlier, on the “Millennials versus Boomers” narrative, is focused on this question, and does some sums to estimate that the intergenerational transfer will amount to something in the region of £4tn. At that stage, the question of economic disparity between the generations will look different. What will replace it is a huge chasm that is not intergenerational but intragenerational: the gap between people who inherit property wealth from their parents and people who don’t."

" Brexit, by killing free movement to and from the EU, caused the biggest voluntary loss of rights in British history, and economically was somewhere on the spectrum between a mistake and a disaster. Leave voters in the Brexit referendum skewed heavily towards older people with secure retirement incomes. People in work and the young overwhelmingly voted remain. The upshot is that the old put their cultural anxieties ahead of future generations’ economic needs. The old voted to jeopardise the economic prospects of the young. The generational imbalance in the vote was so grotesque that if the referendum were rerun, and only people who voted last time were allowed to vote again, and they had to duplicate the vote they made in 2016, remain would now win – because leave voters were older, and have therefore died at a faster rate. Have an entirely fresh vote, and the gap would be much bigger. The pollster Peter Kellner has calculated that if the referendum were rerun today, instead of a leave win by 1.3m votes, remain would win by 8m. There’s no historic parallel for the injustice of that."
 
OP
OP
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Timewaster
I thought it was men (over 21) and women (over 30) who got the vote in 1918 (men needing land ownership qualification before that). Women 21-30 having to wait until 1928).

But happy to corrected as I'm certainly no historian.

"The Reform Act 1832 (also known as the Representation of the People Act) was the first piece of legislation to expand voting rights in the United Kingdom. It firmly established that men above the age of 21 who were freeholders of property could vote and standardized this franchise across all boroughs. However, it specifically stated that only men could vote, laying down a statutory bar disenfranchising the nation’s women. A further Reform Act in 1867 enfranchised householders, expanding the category of eligible voters to include the working classes for the first time, while the Reform Act 1884 established this for both municipal boroughs and county constituencies. Combined, the acts pushed the number of voters to 6 million.

In the 19th Century, the Women’s Suffrage movement got started and kept political pressure on Parliament through non-violent and violent means until the passage of the Representation of the People Act in 1918. The Act didn’t go far enough into establishing the right to vote for all women as it still required them to own property, but it did do away with the property requirements for men, giving the right to vote for all men regardless of race or class. The Representation of the People Act 1928 did away with the property requirements for women, finally opening the door to all persons 21 years of age or older.

The final major piece of legislation to expand the franchise came with the Representation of the People Act 1969, which (much like the 26th Amendment in the US) extended the right to vote to all persons aged 18 to 20."

https://anglotopia.net/british-history/the-history-of-voting-rights-in-the-united-kingdom/
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R
OP
OP
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Timewaster
Sky News need a slap in the face. The two, yes *two* Israelis were "killed", while a mere 400 Lebanese people, getting second billing were simply "left dead". I simply don't understand how any news source can justify this.

1773002057697.png
 
Top Bottom