The Brexit Thread (reprise)

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

1 minute ago, 1902 said:

Why is economic activity a pre-requisite for a say in society? Does this also include the unemployed, those who bring up families? 

Speaking as a remainer/rejoiner who is a good 40 years from retirement, I find it bizarre that anyone would wish to disenfranchise those who traditionally have been some of the most vulnerable in our society.

Until the day I die, I will deserve representation and a say in who represents me.

 

 

*As an aside, the France example is also a profoundly stupid. Melanchon and Le Pen both promised to reduce the retirement age or maintain it, the only person who wasnt trying to bribe voters approaching retirement with the promise of more money from the young was Macron who was more popular with retirees. 

There are several issues to consider. Competence beig the most obvious (a 90 year old with dementure can vote even if they don't know which century it is) and the more straightforward issue of people voting for things that are unlikely to affect them or to which they will suffer any consequences.

On the distorted economic front one only has to look at things like free bus passes to buy the grey vote whereas it might make more sense for free public transport for workers at rush hour. Endless examples such as the triple lock.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,577]

16 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

There are several issues to consider. Competence beig the most obvious (a 90 year old with dementure can vote even if they don't know which century it is) and the more straightforward issue of people voting for things that are unlikely to affect them or to which they will suffer any consequences.

On the distorted economic front one only has to look at things like free bus passes to buy the grey vote whereas it might make more sense for free public transport for workers at rush hour. Endless examples such as the triple lock.

I don't accept the argument that the vote of younger people should somehow have more worth than the vote of someone older. Most older people have an eye on the future of younger generations and generally have a lot more life experience behind them than younger people. And while you're right that a 90 year-old with dementia's vote counts as much, so does that of a 25 year-old convicted rapist after release from prison. Voting is a universal right, and should be respected as such, regardless of what people might think of how they voted, especially when looking at generalisations based on statistics.

Edited May 17, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[1902 1,167]

19 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

There are several issues to consider. Competence beig the most obvious (a 90 year old with dementure can vote even if they don't know which century it is) and the more straightforward issue of people voting for things that are unlikely to affect them or to which they will suffer any consequences.

On the distorted economic front one only has to look at things like free bus passes to buy the grey vote whereas it might make more sense for free public transport for workers at rush hour. Endless examples such as the triple lock.

The triple lock was designed to gradually increase the state pensions, which is insanely meagre, the primary beneficiary's being poorer women. Means testing it would be ridiculous and would make it more likely that the isolated wouldn't receive extra money whilst destroying political consensus for it's very existence by not providing it to those who pay for it i.e higher earners during their working life.

Free bus passes are clearly sensible given that pensioners can't travel at peak hours, can't walk everywhere and can't always drive because of incapacity.

It also encourages those who have adequate time to use public transport, reducing emissions, not clogging up roads away from rush hour, reducing road repairs and increasing the likelihood that pensioners will make their own way for services rather than that burden being placed on carers or the state. It also works as a subsidy for rural bus services and encourages demand to spread across the day rather. It's also far more likely that the poor will use it.

Additionally, every voting block receives a bung from political parties. Just remember Osbornes economically illiterate house saving scheme.

No stake in the future? What if I have terminal cancer. Do I lose my vote?

As to mental capacity. Nobody is excluded the vote due to mental incapacity in the UK. Long should it remain so. Schizophrenia is not a barrier, neither is split personality disorder. If you have an issue with it then it has to be with all those who are maybe not capable of making all their decisions, not just those you feel are too old. Then you have to set up a state body to strip people of their votes and deal with the inevitable consequences of that. If someone is 98% of the time lucid can vote they, but not if it's 82% of the time?

Edited May 17, 2022 by 1902

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

6 minutes ago, 1902 said:

The triple lock was designed to gradually increase the state pensions, which is insanely meagre, the primary beneficiary's being poorer women. Means testing it would be ridiculous and would make it more likely that the isolated wouldn't receive extra money whilst destroying political consensus for it's very existence by not providing it to those who pay for it i.e higher earners during their working life.

Free bus passes are clearly sensible given that pensioners can't travel at peak hours, can't walk everywhere and can't always drive because of incapacity.

It also encourages those who have adequate time to use public transport, reducing emissions, not clogging up roads away from rush hour, reducing road repairs and increasing the likelihood that pensioners will make their own way for services rather than that burden being placed on carers or the state. It also works as a subsidy for rural bus services and encourages demand to spread across the day rather. It's also far more likely that the poor will use it.

Additionally, every voting block receives a bung from political parties. Just remember Osbornes economically illiterate house saving scheme.

No stake in the future? What if I have terminal cancer. Do I lose my vote?

As to mental capacity. Nobody is excluded the vote due to mental incapacity in the UK. Long should it remain so. Schizophrenia is not a barrier, neither is split personality disorder. If you have an issue with it then it has to be with all those who maybe not capable of making all their decisions, not just those you feel are too old. Then you have to set up a state body to strip people of their votes and deal with the inevitable consequences of that. If someone is 98% of the time lucid can vote they, but not if it's 82% of the time?

Good. I'm pleased its got you thinking even if you've immediately run to the defence of the older population. 

However if I take your points about competence to thelr logical conclusion then perhaps 11 year old should vote too competent or otherwise.

The point is there is a discussion to be had if we have an ageing population that increasingly doesn’t reflect (or vote for in the first instance) the needs of the economically active. It is a recipe for economic decay.

[1902 1,167]

8 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Good. I'm pleased its got you thinking even if you've immediately run to the defence of the older population. 

However if I take your points about competence to thelr logical conclusion then perhaps 11 year old should vote too competent or otherwise.

The point is there is a discussion to be had if we have an ageing population that increasingly doesn’t reflect (or vote for in the first instance) the needs of the economically active. It is a recipe for economic decay.

"I'm pleased its got you thinking even if you've immediately run to the defence of the older population."

It really didn't get me thinking that much, it's not a particularly strong argument and I will defend the older population because I don't see politics purely as inter-generational warfare. I tend to view it as about good policy and bad. So far your two examples have been to criticise two good policies because you seem them purely in term of wealth transfer from young to old and not to economically advantaged to economically disadvantaged or as just a sensible piece of transport policy.

Its really not a recipe for economic decay. A strong underlying economy is of much interest to the majority of pensioners as it is to those of working age. They are impacted by tax policy, inflation and growth as much as I am. Fuel poverty is more of a problem for them than me.

The problem is not in fact that the elderly are too strong a voting block but that the Western world didn't understand that the health expenditure needs of older generations would skyrocket.

As to competence, there's actually a difference between universally lacking the knowledge and experience to vote (all children) and potentially understanding their interests for large proportions of the time (dementia). Im not arguing it's perfect, there are always voters who are maybe not of what we would consider sound mind, but you haven't really answered the issue of who strips people of their vote and on what criteria.

Edited May 18, 2022 by 1902

[littleyellowbirdie 2,577]

8 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Good. I'm pleased its got you thinking even if you've immediately run to the defence of the older population. 

Trouble is, this argument isn't really about their fitness to vote; it's about disenfranchising groups that you consider to be a barrier to your own preferred outcomes. 

That this bigoted attitude to older voters in particular has achieved so much traction in so-called progressive circles simply on the back of the EU referendum is incredibly disturbing. 

Turning it on its head, turnout of younger voters in the EU referendum was dismal, to such an extent that, had more turned out, we may never have had a leave outcome in the first place. You could easily use that as a specious basis to question the rights of younger people to vote in much the same way as older people are having their rights challenged. 

[horsefly 4,310]

Democracy stands its best chance of being effective when the franchise is extended to include as many citizens as possible within its  rationally defensible limits. Thus I am not inclined to consider further restrictions on who can vote, but rather always look to see if there are genuine reasons to include currently excluded groups into the franchise (e.g. 16 year-olds).

The real problem for democracy lies with getting those who already have the vote to engage in a participatory democracy. Alexis de Tocqueville showed extraordinary prescience when he predicted that Western style capitalism would tend towards a kind of "soft-despotism". He thought that the lives of people would become so relatively comfortable under capitalism that they would be disincentivised from playing an active part in the democratic process (Democracy in America- 1835). His observation is confirmed by  the quite astonishing fact that so many of those with the right to vote can't even bring themselves to participate in the democratic process in the most minimal fashion by actually casting a vote. It should thus be no surprise that we have ended up with the poor calibre of politicians that currently infect our system of political power, given the apathy of the voting public. 

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

2 hours ago, 1902 said:

"I'm pleased its got you thinking even if you've immediately run to the defence of the older population."

It really didn't get me thinking that much, it's not a particularly strong argument and I will defend the older population because I don't see politics purely as inter-generational warfare. I tend to view it as about good policy and bad. So far your two examples have been to criticise two good policies because you seem them purely in term of wealth transfer from young to old and not to economically advantaged to economically disadvantaged or as just a sensible piece of transport policy.

Its really not a recipe for economic decay. A strong underlying economy is of much interest to the majority of pensioners as it is to those of working age. They are impacted by tax policy, inflation and growth as much as I am. Fuel poverty is more of a problem for them than me.

The problem is not in fact that the elderly are too strong a voting block but that the Western world didn't understand that the health expenditure needs of older generations would skyrocket.

As to competence, there's actually a difference between universally lacking the knowledge and experience to vote (all children) and potentially understanding their interests for large proportions of the time (dementia). Im not arguing it's perfect, there are always voters who are maybe not of what we would consider sound mind, but you haven't really answered the issue of who strips people of their vote and on what criteria.

 

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Trouble is, this argument isn't really about their fitness to vote; it's about disenfranchising groups that you consider to be a barrier to your own preferred outcomes. 

That this bigoted attitude to older voters in particular has achieved so much traction in so-called progressive circles simply on the back of the EU referendum is incredibly disturbing. 

Turning it on its head, turnout of younger voters in the EU referendum was dismal, to such an extent that, had more turned out, we may never have had a leave outcome in the first place. You could easily use that as a specious basis to question the rights of younger people to vote in much the same way as older people are having their rights challenged. 

 

Both of you missed the point of the comment. What I was pointing out is that there is as much or even a greater argument for an upper limit on suffrage as there is an argument for a lower voting age - and with an ageing population we need to be aware of how that may bias decisions. Presently I think we should allow all 16 year olds to vote (it will engage them with politics) and leave the geriatrics alone.

However, leaving Brexit alone (with its hugely correlated age profile) other topical examples of 'bias' might be the housing crisis (how many of us bought our first homes on 2.5 times our salary  - myself in central London). Could we afford to buy the same property again on just our retiring salary today - I would suggest NOT! Perhaps new houses for the young isn't so popular in a our green and pleasant land once we have our own and have pulled up the drawbridge.

Need I say more. 

[Van wink 2,994]

I can see why some might be attracted to a system that disenfranchises demographic groups that tend to hold an opposing political view. It's much easier than winning a political argument. A few on here would be dodging the Sandman.😀

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

5 minutes ago, Van wink said:

I can see why some might be attracted to a system that disenfranchises demographic groups that tend to hold an opposing political view. It's much easier than winning a political argument. A few on here would be dodging the Sandman.😀

I'm just playing devils advocate with those that don't like the idea of reducing voting age to 16. 16 year old's generally have far more 'directly at stake' than the average 85 year old in the future of the country. We have concluded it seems that competence isn't an argument against already! 

[Van wink 2,994]

5 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I'm just playing devils advocate with those that don't like the idea of reducing voting age to 16. 16 year old's generally have far more 'directly at stake' than the average 85 year old in the future of the country. We have concluded it seems that competence isn't an argument against already! 

Why 16 years old and not 15?

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

Just now, Van wink said:

Why 16 years old and not 15?

Yes - You used to be able to go out to work at 14....

But 16 is the age at which you can get married etc or enlist. I paid taxes at 16........ Should of been able to vote too.

No taxation without representation!

Being naughty w.r.t. above I could also say no representation without full NI taxation too! 

[sonyc 5,541]

 

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14748851211062604

This link is one very recent paper looking at the complexity of age weighted voting, some principles. Lots of interesting issues explored. 

For me, tend to agree with horsefly above.

[Van wink 2,994]

33 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes - You used to be able to go out to work at 14....

But 16 is the age at which you can get married etc or enlist. I paid taxes at 16........ Should of been able to vote too.

No taxation without representation!

Being naughty w.r.t. above I could also say no representation without full NI taxation too! 

Not sure that’s quite true, I think you can work part time from 14 and if you earn enough you are liable for tax. NI starts at 16. So maybe to apply No Taxation Without Representation we should lower the voting age to 14😁

So I think you are going for votes for 14 year olds and Carousel for the over 65’s 😁

Edited May 18, 2022 by Van wink

[sonyc 5,541]

1 hour ago, Van wink said:

I can see why some might be attracted to a system that disenfranchises demographic groups that tend to hold an opposing political view. It's much easier than winning a political argument. A few on here would be dodging the Sandman.😀

Our current government wants to do this with Voter ID. So very attractive to them. Likewise, jerrymandering of boundaries also helps. Keeps the status quo going and protects interests.

[Herman 9,819]

1 hour ago, Van wink said:

I can see why some might be attracted to a system that disenfranchises demographic groups that tend to hold an opposing political view. It's much easier than winning a political argument. A few on here would be dodging the Sandman.😀

I still think the idea of an IQ test for potential voters is viable. 

[ricardo 7,396]

4 minutes ago, Herman said:

I still think the idea of an IQ test for potential voters is viable. 

"It's enough for the people to know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing, the people who count the votes decide everything."

Stalin 

 

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

1 hour ago, sonyc said:

 

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14748851211062604

This link is one very recent paper looking at the complexity of age weighted voting, some principles. Lots of interesting issues explored. 

For me, tend to agree with horsefly above.

Thanks SonyC - tend to agree BUT it's all I was doing was pointing out that a discussion on this is pertinent especially so in conjunction with some opposition to 16 year old voting and can't be dismissed out of hand. 

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

1 hour ago, Van wink said:

Not sure that’s quite true, I think you can work part time from 14 and if you earn enough you are liable for tax. NI starts at 16. So maybe to apply No Taxation Without Representation we should lower the voting age to 14😁

So I think you are going for votes for 14 year olds and Carousel for the over 65’s 😁

I think 16 is fine but I do see no reason why pensioners if they still earn enough to pay NI shouldn't pay the usual NI as per everybody else - or are they a special case ? It's just a mid 20th century hangover - same as originally differing retirement ages for men and women.

[Van wink 2,994]

7 minutes ago, Herman said:

I still think the idea of an IQ test for potential voters is viable. 

It could be a quiz show hosted by Lee Mack with a row of voting booths along one side and a carousel on the other. Great idea for a South Korean Netflix show.😀

[littleyellowbirdie 2,577]

2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

I'm just playing devils advocate with those that don't like the idea of reducing voting age to 16. 16 year old's generally have far more 'directly at stake' than the average 85 year old in the future of the country. We have concluded it seems that competence isn't an argument against already! 

I've no strong opinion either way about giving votes to 16-18 year-olds; I do think it's very questionable as to whether it's that big an issue when it should be of more concern that only 47% of 18-24 year-olds voted in 2019.

The biggest issue with our democracy is that the make-up of parliament isn't reflective of the vote shares of the range of parties available. Fix that and you'll start seeing a rise in voter participation. At that point of might be worth worrying about the minimum age of suffrage, but it's a trivial question as things stand.

[sonyc 5,541]

9 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Thanks SonyC - tend to agree BUT it's all I was doing was pointing out that a discussion on this is pertinent especially so in conjunction with some opposition to 16 year old voting and can't be dismissed out of hand. 

Yes, I know you were opening up a discussion. And it's a very interesting one. If the Tories get their way then there will be less young people voting and they soon won't even be able to easily or lawfully protest if they did get engaged by an issue! I can't imagine too many much older people protesting on issues (though Matt famously covered the matter...)🙂

It's very pertinent. My point is that folk can become more fixed as they get older. Like they know everything. Maybe it's because of approaching death, I don't know. That isn't an argument for taking a vote away but more one about being more open minded as one ages, that you try and consider others. Hence, my comment about the Brexit voter age profile. The best teachers I had were from my Welsh side, real elders if you like. They taught me to question and think of others and be open-minded. Even at old age they could put themselves in others shoes.

Maybe it's about education too then? The challenge for UK politics is to make politics meaningful to younger people. I suppose the independence movements have helped in that respect ironically (certainly in Scotland and Wales where you get people seem to be more vocal).

I don't really know. The referendum was a shocker for me must admit. I had a discussion years ago on here about the need to be curious and more uncertain as one ages. It found no agreement needless to say!

[TheGunnShow 5,985]

On 17/05/2022 at 10:26, Yellow Fever said:

Good - I recall somewhere else saying there was a good case for an upper limit on suffrage - 75 say as much as starting it at 16.

I'm always leery of any voting restrictions on adults (in fact, I would say I think people who are prisoners should also vote). There was a particularly dense idea floated in the USA recently, saying that parents should have more votes than non-parents or, even sillier, that those without kids should not have the right to vote.

They basically sent down the old lie that those without kids have "no skin in the game".

Clearly taxation without representation is theft only applies to these sorts when they're the ones getting taxed and not represented.

Edited May 18, 2022 by TheGunnShow

[littleyellowbirdie 2,577]

15 hours ago, 1902 said:

Why is economic activity a pre-requisite for a say in society? Does this also include the unemployed, those who bring up families? 

Speaking as a remainer/rejoiner who is a good 40 years from retirement, I find it bizarre that anyone would wish to disenfranchise those who traditionally have been some of the most vulnerable in our society.

Until the day I die, I will deserve representation and a say in who represents me.

 

 

*As an aside, the France example is also a profoundly stupid. Melanchon and Le Pen both promised to reduce the retirement age or maintain it, the only person who wasnt trying to bribe voters approaching retirement with the promise of more money from the young was Macron who was more popular with retirees. 

You could even take that a bit further and start arguing that only those who make a net input into the treasury should be entitled to vote. 

"Yes, I'm aware you've paid some income tax and NI, but your recent surgery along with your housing benefit and child benefit has cost more than you've put in, so you can't vote I'm afraid. Earn more money and come back."

[Van wink 2,994]

5 hours ago, sonyc said:

Our current government wants to do this with Voter ID. So very attractive to them. Likewise, jerrymandering of boundaries also helps. Keeps the status quo going and protects interests.

I don't think these sorts of ploys are unique to this Government or particularly governments of this colour. I'm sure you've referred to working in housing in the past, my recollection of, for example the HIP process, was that funding formula tended to favour Housing Authorities of the same political persuasion as the incumbent Government, likewise with LA revenue funding formulae. 

I think I would agree that with the current lot its a bit more obvious how things are manipulated, I also suspect that has something to do with the media taking a much greater interest in these sorts of issues than they did in the past.

Good to see you posting btw 👍

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

All of this is interesting.

I think the underlying concern is that with an ageing demographic and falling birth rates if we aren't careful we will end up with an electorate who's prime interests don't align with those 'working' to pay taxes (to fund the services) and the long term interests of the country. I guess if students dominated you might expect services to be slanted to them instead.

Many 'oldies' will say we care but frankly the evidence doesn't support that. Us oldies tend to be conservative (with a small c), nostalgic about the past, it was always better in my day and old dog's cant be taught new tricks. If we don't take care i.e cost of housing we will end up with an unbalanced society and government to boot.

[sonyc 5,541]

1 hour ago, Van wink said:

I don't think these sorts of ploys are unique to this Government or particularly governments of this colour. I'm sure you've referred to working in housing in the past, my recollection of, for example the HIP process, was that funding formula tended to favour Housing Authorities of the same political persuasion as the incumbent Government, likewise with LA revenue funding formulae. 

I think I would agree that with the current lot its a bit more obvious how things are manipulated, I also suspect that has something to do with the media taking a much greater interest in these sorts of issues than they did in the past.

Good to see you posting btw 👍

Thank you VW. It's true about the housing formula. And it's one of the issues that started the Northern Way, a movement of northern authorities who wanted better investment and who knew that the south and more conservative authorities took most. Then it morphed to Northern Powerhouse after Osbourne (but was still a handy slogan he could hang around...as if he really had any genuine interest). Ask many northern politicians or local funders / third sector and they will say the same thing. No "levelling up" for decades (and I'm going back to the 1980s). That's why I don't believe Johnson. Germany have spent trillions not billions on trying to invest in the much needed infrastructure in East Germany. They've done it over decades too. It hasn't just been a marketing ploy but serious planning has been involved. The current government prospectus is so hastily put together and is frankly laughable. So, I  find myself hating almost anything I read about it. I feel we are being played. I felt the same, I have to admit, about Brexit. I dislike dishonesty.

The notes about voting age I raised because somehow I sense the country is not represented properly. Of course there is a poor electoral system (and I know there are worse) but our politicians seem increasingly out of kilter with reality.

Real issues just are not reaching - or biting through may be a better term - to the population. The cost of living IS now but that's been a serious problem for decades! I've seen it with my own eyes. As a young housing worker I witnessed people so poor. One used to burn his floorboards just to keep warm (imagine the scene of a chair at the very edge of the room and a hole to the bare earth in the middle). So many other stories I could tell you. Almost something to laugh about I suppose but that's because one feels a sense of embarrassment I reckon. As a counsellor too one saw peoples' inner struggles close up as it were. It was troubling and upsetting. What kind of country are we? Is it because I'm getting old and reactionary? Did I not observe enough before? Is it really worse? I just don't know. 

I realise I'm digressing but it needs a long term serious government. Or series of governments... Where all parties agree on the main problems and then tackle them. I'm very worn out about it. I tried my bit and felt at the time I was making a difference. But it's far too structural. And I think whilst now old, a few older folk don't care very much. 

On the point of posting I'm still feeling conflicted. Just being honest... I'm not sure I'm very relevant. Or if I am whether I'm more uncertain in myself. Even my love of Norwich City is waning because when all the world was s*** we could rely on our team to cheer us. Now we seem to be in a decline (and not just on the pitch...strategic management too).

Something has to change for the good..soon, doesn't it?🙂 When former communist countries declared their independence in the 1990s it felt a positive time. Maybe it was a case of fin-de-siecle. Everything passes.

I'm looking forward to the time when this hideous administration is voted out. I've not known one worse in my lifetime. Yet, there is a fear that they will pass legislation to keep themselves in power...I'm also hoping too that traditional Tory voters come to some senses and vote tactically at the very least. This government is full of chancers and folk who cannot express themselves very well. Such a poor calibre. 90% of Pinkun posters would be more believable.

 

 

Edited May 18, 2022 by sonyc
VW not BW

[littleyellowbirdie 2,577]

2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

All of this is interesting.

I think the underlying concern is that with an ageing demographic and falling birth rates if we aren't careful we will end up with an electorate who's prime interests don't align with those 'working' to pay taxes (to fund the services) and the long term interests of the country. I guess if students dominated you might expect services to be slanted to them instead.

Many 'oldies' will say we care but frankly the evidence doesn't support that. Us oldies tend to be conservative (with a small c), nostalgic about the past, it was always better in my day and old dog's cant be taught new tricks. If we don't take care i.e cost of housing we will end up with an unbalanced society and government to boot.

Odd that you present a stereotype of a group that you're evidently part of while not subscribing to those views. Isn't it a bit weird to be seeking to disenfranchise yourself? 

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Odd that you present a stereotype of a group that you're evidently part of while not subscribing to those views. Isn't it a bit weird to be seeking to disenfranchise yourself? 

Not at all. I'm currently quite capable of distancing myself from my personal position at the moment and identify a growing issue for debate and it's social, political and economic implications.  Furthermore, I hope I'll know when, and have the good sense (or be gently told) as I age to pass any such decisions onto younger more engaged and less senile folk at the time. 

Stereotype. Hmm. Well it seems age does correlate with a number of voters views at present so I guess there must be something to that as us baby boomers will vote differently, I guess in our own interest as a group, than say generations x, y or z. If age didn't correlate to any particular views then you may have an argument that we remain fully rational and of independent and balanced thought at whatever age but it does correlate. Even Judges retire!

[Van wink 2,994]

23 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Even Judges retire!

Yes every day to make a decision!!!

Of course the retirement age for the judiciary has recently been raised to 75, clearly for you these learned folk would have been disenfranchised many years previous due to being mentally incapable 😁