Jeremy Paxman says 'no votes for pensioners'

It was a poster for a debate on 7th February, which presumably prompted Paxo's article in the DM.

Paxman didn't write the article in the DM. It was a report on his contribution to the debate. The report was written by Alisha Rouse Showbusiness Correspondent For The Daily Mail

I stand corrected, thank you for pointing that out MaizieD.

So it wasn't a 'good post', lemon. It was made on a completely wrong premise...

No, it was not a completely wrong premise, it was based on what Jeremy Paxman had said in the debate, rather than what he had written himself.

So a bit of nitpicking pedantry there, methinks.

And I stand by what I said in my post. You could say that that is only opinion, but in fact it is based on observation. I do know a two or three so-called 'millennials' who struggle and whinge despite having been given every advantage but then the same can be said for a couple of older people I know too - and my observations are that it is the people in their own peer group who are most exasperated by them.

I do know a two or three
superfluous a there

So a bit of nitpicking pedantry there, methinks.

The premise was that he wrote it, not that he said it.

Spot on again, Day6!

Wrote it, said it? Either way it came from HIS mind.

MaizieD Mon 19-Feb-18 22:21:02
It was a poster for a debate on 7th February, which presumably prompted Paxo's article in the DM.

Paxman didn't write the article in the DM. It was a report on his contribution to the debate. The report was written by Alisha Rouse Showbusiness Correspondent For The Daily Mail.
----

Obviously!

The OP gave a link to an article in the Daily Mail, although other media outlets have covered the same story.

It is made perfectly clear on reading the DM piece Jeremy Paxman did not write it and it was his opinion made at a debate.

"By ALISHA ROUSE SHOWBUSINESS CORRESPONDENT FOR THE DAILY MAIL

The Cambridge graduate also accused pensioners of ‘exploiting’ their vote by forcing politicians to focus on their own problems. He was speaking at an event run by debating organisation Intelligence Squared."

I remain a tad confused why Brexit has yet again taken over a thread . What did Paxman comment about over the subject of Brexit 'at this debate'.? From the comments he did make and were reported on I see him commentating on the fact we simply sat on our arses , housing, taking our pensions, ease of obtaining jobs , education, etc.

Gransnet HQ asked for comments on Paxmans view . There appears to be a concentrated posting on something I am not sure he even mentioned / commentated on, Brexit . There are some posts who have given their view on what he said and have subsequently been shouted down, par for the course on GN. I would have been interested to hear other posters views but all I see is Brexit, Brexit ,Brexit. AGAIN.

Please help me out to discuss what Paxman said 'at this particular debate' about Brexit to understand why, that's all I am asking. I am happy to be proven wrong.

I take exception about pensioners exploiting their votes. Maybe just maybe they thought they were doing what's best for the country. I worked until I was 70 and whereas I was only doing my duty and I don't want any medals I think I earned my vote.

By the by Pogs what do you think he was talking about when made the statement about pensioners.

POGS something we can agree on at last! I've tried to change the focus of this debate but it never works, it always goes back to Brexit. I've taken this as an indication that Paxman was right in that some pensioners are so bogged down in single issues they are unable to see a wider picture.
The only interesting thing is how long will the Brexitdebate go on? 5 years after we are Brexited-10 years after?

Wally

I said what I think.
.
He is basically saying we are either pig s--t thick , have no future because we are nearing the knackers yard so should butt out of the decision process altogether as to how the government is both elected or run. We are a greedy self centred bunch of spoilt children sitting on our arses while our houses make us money.

Well he doesn't speak for me . I think his whole diatribe is actually that of a middle / upper class , self proclaimed educational elite prat who has probably never had to do a menial job or understands what others have had to do to makes end meet.

If a person agrees with him or feels they have nothing to contribute as to who or what they would vote for because they are over 65 then it's simple , don't vote. Nobody is forcing them so don't be a hypocrite.

Paxman is generalising and his opinion is saying ALL over 65's should be banned from voting. If he and others who agree with him can afford not to take their pension then do so. He is more or less saying ' he' has had a free University education, never been out of employment, earned good money and has therefore acquired wealth over the years. He is not a stupid man and would accept that has not been the life for many who have struggled, put their head down and got on with it and if they were lucky enough to buy their homes have something to show for it. They may be however ' ASSET RICH BUT CASH POOR ' and do not feel they have, in his words, " Sat on our arses and watched our houses appreciate in value ".

Paxman has an opinion as we all do and is just spouting off in a debate but he has raised a serious point by saying Older people had too much power over political debate and he is in favour of limiting the franchise … by stopping people voting at 65 and we demand things of politicians because we go out and vote.

The last 2 / 3 years has seen the most divisive , nasty politics I have noted for many years and it didn't start with the European Referendum although that has certainly exacerbated the bile. It started with some politicians using the generational/ class divide to their advantage on election , the old ' Divide and Conquer ' theory.

I wonder why people feel they have to post abusive things about Paxman to justify their arguments?
His basic statement that most of the old vote in line with what they think are their own best interests is true. It is supported by the concept that the young are idealistic and the old have wisdom which is often raised on GN.
I don't think politics today are anything like as divisive and nasty as those of the 80s when miners were being beaten up by the police and women were being arrested at Greenham Common.

For "old people exploiting their vote" (which is one per person, just like the votes of all other groups) by voting according to their convictions, you could substitute "Politicians and media magnates exploiting their electors and readers," by writing biassed or partial accounts, publishing emotive rants and telling downright fibs about bent bananas.

As for older people not being around much longer to live with the results of their votes, a man of 65 can expect on average to live to 86, and a woman to 89, with one in ten of them reaching 100. That is another 21 to 24 years, with one in ten still being around in 35 years time. The effects of decisions now should be apparent well inside those years.

Even anyone of 80 will on average live another 10 or 11 years.

For "old people exploiting their vote" you could substitute 'old people exercising their franchise' which everyone is entitled to do.

I think I earned my vote. I think the suffragettes and suffragists earned mine for me and I would never want to let them down. so I always make the utmost effort to vote.

The idea that it is only those over the age of 65 who would vote for things which benefit them is a bit naive isn't it? Would not a 18 year old vote for something which benefited them or would they be altruistic and vote for something which disadvantaged them? I think it is more likely that an older person would consider all the viewpoints before voting as they would consider their children and grandchildren.

What about the 18 plus who voted for Corbyn because he promised them no tuition fees? Fortunately not enough could be bothered to vote, even so.Hardly altruistic.
Most people vote a particular way IMHO for a number of reasons.

I think a lot of young voters vote without really thinking about who/what they are voting for. There is little doubt that JC conned a lot of votes from the young by promising them the world on a stick. My sister's knowledge of politics could be written on a pin head and yet she obeyed her union by voting for JC (at 51 it was the first time she had ever voted).

My late mum created havoc in a polling station during a general election by shouting to my dad to tell her where she should put her X.

Meant to add that it was perhaps not just the young who might not think about who/what they are voting for.

gillybob.. I can imagine the polling ststion scene!

I had an interesting discussion with DD and my dad yesterday evening . My DD was saying that it costs her £7 a day to get to and from work on the bus and despite being quite visibly pregnant she still had to stand for the entire time, even though she was probably only one of a handful of people actually paying for the journey.

My dad argued that the buses would be full of "oldies" (he's 80 btw) using their free bus passes to go on day trips and that they should introduce a flat fare. DD said that no government would dare to as "oldies rule" and would be a definite vote loser.

My dad was mortified lemon and made her apply for a postal vote after that.

I think, in the past, quite a few wives simply voted the same as their husbands, and in some cultures many still do.

I would certainly have stood up for your pregnant DD I can never understand anybody not doing so if they see an obviously pregnant woman (and they are reasonably able bodies themselves of any age,) needing a seat.
I also help anyone with a pushchair on and off the bus.

I think you're absolutely spot on lemon my mum was very old fashioned and really believed that men were the superior race ! She rarely had an opinion of her own and looked to my dad for "guidance" in everything.

But should the 'oldies' be the ones that are expected to give up their seat? Surely if your daughter was going to work there must have been other people of working age on the bus.

My DD works mixed shifts Ilovecheese she doesn't work 9-5.

I do think that someone able to should have given up their seat. My point really was that she was only one of a handful who probably paid for the journey and despite being visibly pregnant, no-one gave up their seat.