Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm sure others will say they know plenty of 40 yo that fall into the same category. But imo I think we need more consistency about age. Maybe we should be looking late at whether an 18yo should be paying tax. Or (legally) able to have sex. " I'd rather have the option that no one pays tax until they are 18 if that would mean the voting age stays at 18 too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe if schools provided better education about the political framework. And if kids were taught the life skill of critical analysis of information that is presented to them. But then the electorate would be much more difficult to control. So can't see that happening. " Fully agree that politics should be discussed more in schools, would possibly wake some kids up as to how society works. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe if schools provided better education about the political framework. And if kids were taught the life skill of critical analysis of information that is presented to them. But then the electorate would be much more difficult to control. So can't see that happening. " Oh yes back to the schools to do everything. When kids can't read write or do maths it is the fault of schools. Curriculum overload and throwing everything at schools to solve the problems of society has led to falling standards. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also feel that making schools teach politics is just asking for trouble. " Why? Just look at how many adults do not understand how things work, what mayors do, what the local council does, what parliament does, what the HOL does, what the EU does. If the electorate as a whole is better educated about their political framework that's surely a good thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Make everything 18: Leaving school Full time work Joining armed forces Driving Getting married (forget the “with permission from parents” at 16) Claiming benefits Etc" And vote (missed that!) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Make everything 18: Leaving school Full time work Joining armed forces Driving Getting married (forget the “with permission from parents” at 16) Claiming benefits Etc And vote (missed that!)" +1 We arrived at the number 18 for scientific reasons based on brain development and ability to make independent decisions. It would be lame to allow some of these before 18 and some only after 18. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Make everything 18: Leaving school Full time work Joining armed forces Driving Getting married (forget the “with permission from parents” at 16) Claiming benefits Etc And vote (missed that!) +1 We arrived at the number 18 for scientific reasons based on brain development and ability to make independent decisions. It would be lame to allow some of these before 18 and some only after 18." Did we? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Make everything 18: Leaving school Full time work Joining armed forces Driving Getting married (forget the “with permission from parents” at 16) Claiming benefits Etc And vote (missed that!) +1 We arrived at the number 18 for scientific reasons based on brain development and ability to make independent decisions. It would be lame to allow some of these before 18 and some only after 18. Did we?" If we wait for full brain development, we have to wait until 25. 18 is the time when the development is reasonably good enough to make better choices. I am all for increasing the voting age. Decreasing to 16 is ridiculous. But as a politician's goal is only to get into power, I can why Labour wants to do this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Make everything 18: Leaving school Full time work Joining armed forces Driving Getting married (forget the “with permission from parents” at 16) Claiming benefits Etc And vote (missed that!) +1 We arrived at the number 18 for scientific reasons based on brain development and ability to make independent decisions. It would be lame to allow some of these before 18 and some only after 18. Did we? If we wait for full brain development, we have to wait until 25. 18 is the time when the development is reasonably good enough to make better choices. I am all for increasing the voting age. Decreasing to 16 is ridiculous. But as a politician's goal is only to get into power, I can why Labour wants to do this." You implied that the decision to have a voting age of 18 is science based, are you now saying that’s not the case? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also feel that making schools teach politics is just asking for trouble. Keep the voting age at 18, but also keep taxation off until 18 too, but also benefits (except medical, disability type benefits) Might encourage more school leavers to go in to work and give them the ability to start saving for their future a little earlier. Well, one can hope!" I agree no tax or benefits until 18 and in general agree with teaching politics in school but it has to be done in a non bias way. The teachers should not be able to put their own political bias into the teaching | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Make everything 18: Leaving school Full time work Joining armed forces Driving Getting married (forget the “with permission from parents” at 16) Claiming benefits Etc And vote (missed that!) +1 We arrived at the number 18 for scientific reasons based on brain development and ability to make independent decisions. It would be lame to allow some of these before 18 and some only after 18. Did we? If we wait for full brain development, we have to wait until 25. 18 is the time when the development is reasonably good enough to make better choices. I am all for increasing the voting age. Decreasing to 16 is ridiculous. But as a politician's goal is only to get into power, I can why Labour wants to do this. You implied that the decision to have a voting age of 18 is science based, are you now saying that’s not the case?" It is. If you look at history, depending on what adulthood implies and cultural aspects, the age of adulthood was random, ranging from age of puberty to as high as 21. Most countries reached a standard of 18 for defining adulthood based on multiple reasons, science on psychological development being one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Make everything 18: Leaving school Full time work Joining armed forces Driving Getting married (forget the “with permission from parents” at 16) Claiming benefits Etc And vote (missed that!) +1 We arrived at the number 18 for scientific reasons based on brain development and ability to make independent decisions. It would be lame to allow some of these before 18 and some only after 18. Did we? If we wait for full brain development, we have to wait until 25. 18 is the time when the development is reasonably good enough to make better choices. I am all for increasing the voting age. Decreasing to 16 is ridiculous. But as a politician's goal is only to get into power, I can why Labour wants to do this. You implied that the decision to have a voting age of 18 is science based, are you now saying that’s not the case? It is. If you look at history, depending on what adulthood implies and cultural aspects, the age of adulthood was random, ranging from age of puberty to as high as 21. Most countries reached a standard of 18 for defining adulthood based on multiple reasons, science on psychological development being one." Really? Are you sure about that? The UK was the first country to reduce voting age to 18, that had nothing whatsoever to do with psychological development. It had to do with bringing it in line with other levels of responsibility. A person’s brain is never fully developed, a person’s cognitive capabilities are properly developed by 15-17. A lot of pre frontal cortex functions aren’t ‘fully developed’ until late 20s. There is very little difference between the brain of a 16 year old and the brain of an 18 year old. To say that 18 seems like the right age is anti-scientific bullshit that is based on what people ’think’ rather than scientific evidence. If I was to go off what I ‘feel’ at this point in my life about 18 year old me having the right to vote and being responsible enough to drive a 2 tonne killing machine around on the roads then I would strongly advise against it! But that’s just old man shouts at clouds bullshit, so rightly I’m not the one to decide! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Make everything 18: Leaving school Full time work Joining armed forces Driving Getting married (forget the “with permission from parents” at 16) Claiming benefits Etc And vote (missed that!) +1 We arrived at the number 18 for scientific reasons based on brain development and ability to make independent decisions. It would be lame to allow some of these before 18 and some only after 18. Did we? If we wait for full brain development, we have to wait until 25. 18 is the time when the development is reasonably good enough to make better choices. I am all for increasing the voting age. Decreasing to 16 is ridiculous. But as a politician's goal is only to get into power, I can why Labour wants to do this. You implied that the decision to have a voting age of 18 is science based, are you now saying that’s not the case? It is. If you look at history, depending on what adulthood implies and cultural aspects, the age of adulthood was random, ranging from age of puberty to as high as 21. Most countries reached a standard of 18 for defining adulthood based on multiple reasons, science on psychological development being one. Really? Are you sure about that? The UK was the first country to reduce voting age to 18, that had nothing whatsoever to do with psychological development. It had to do with bringing it in line with other levels of responsibility. A person’s brain is never fully developed, a person’s cognitive capabilities are properly developed by 15-17. A lot of pre frontal cortex functions aren’t ‘fully developed’ until late 20s. There is very little difference between the brain of a 16 year old and the brain of an 18 year old. To say that 18 seems like the right age is anti-scientific bullshit that is based on what people ’think’ rather than scientific evidence. If I was to go off what I ‘feel’ at this point in my life about 18 year old me having the right to vote and being responsible enough to drive a 2 tonne killing machine around on the roads then I would strongly advise against it! But that’s just old man shouts at clouds bullshit, so rightly I’m not the one to decide!" I don't know about the science behind this but I can say with full confidence that anyone with kids of the ages of 16 & 18 will argue there's a huge difference in how their brains work. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The UK was the first country to reduce voting age to 18, that had nothing whatsoever to do with psychological development. It had to do with bringing it in line with other levels of responsibility. " UK being the first country to set voting age to 18 doesn't matter. There are over 200 countries with minimum voting age as 18. Where do you think the minimum age for "other levels of responsibilities" come from. It has a lot to do with psychological development. Instead of focusing on voting only, you should look at why the number 18 has been seen synonymous with adulthood for multiple things like driving or having alcohol. By a roll of a dice? Not really. " A person’s brain is never fully developed, a person’s cognitive capabilities are properly developed by 15-17. A lot of pre frontal cortex functions aren’t ‘fully developed’ until late 20s. " So before the age of 18, cognitive capabilities are developed for some and not for others. Some countries with a minimum voting age of 18 have exceptions for the ones younger than 18 who are working and are paying taxes which probably does a good job in identifying the ones who have a reasonable understanding of the outside world and aren't limited by what they are only taught in schools. " There is very little difference between the brain of a 16 year old and the brain of an 18 year old. To say that 18 seems like the right age is anti-scientific bullshit that is based on what people ’think’ rather than scientific evidence. " There is a very little difference between the brain of a 15 year old and that of a 16 year old too. So why not lower it to 15? We can keep doing this until we let new born babies vote. " If I was to go off what I ‘feel’ at this point in my life about 18 year old me having the right to vote and being responsible enough to drive a 2 tonne killing machine around on the roads then I would strongly advise against it! But that’s just old man shouts at clouds bullshit, so rightly I’m not the one to decide!" Not saying 18 is the perfect number. But on average, it works well as a baseline age for adulthood. Moving the voting age to 16 is just to get more votes for Labour. I don't understand why anyone has trouble to see through this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"16 year old children voting
"16 year old children in the armed forces. There's a contradiction here, old enough to kill, not old enough to vote. Personally I'd have both at 18. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"16 year old children voting
16 year old children in the armed forces.
There's a contradiction here, old enough to kill, not old enough to vote. Personally I'd have both at 18. "Agreed, change the age they can join the army and other poor decisions from the past, it certainly shouldn't be a benchmark. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They can have sex legally at 16. Join the Army at 16 (front line at 18). Drive alone at 17. Fly abroad on their own passport between 15-17. Get Married - and civil partnership. Pay Taxes at any age. Yea. Why not. But we should - set ONE age for all those things" Why? France doesn't. They can have sex legally there at 15. They can't drive until 18. Ireland is 17 for both those things. Turkey is 18 for both of these things. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They can have sex legally at 16. Join the Army at 16 (front line at 18). Drive alone at 17. Fly abroad on their own passport between 15-17. Get Married - and civil partnership. Pay Taxes at any age. Yea. Why not. But we should - set ONE age for all those things Why? France doesn't. They can have sex legally there at 15. They can't drive until 18. Ireland is 17 for both those things. Turkey is 18 for both of these things. " What has France or Ireland or Turkey got to do with it? I don't live there. (I do have French Family In France)  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What brain development do you need to vote? And if that is important, should we look at restricting voting at older ages when brain deterioration starts?" Can of worms that . . . Degree educated here, and I still get how much wine I'm able to drink wrong !!!!   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They can have sex legally at 16. Join the Army at 16 (front line at 18). Drive alone at 17. Fly abroad on their own passport between 15-17. Get Married - and civil partnership. Pay Taxes at any age. Yea. Why not. But we should - set ONE age for all those things Why? France doesn't. They can have sex legally there at 15. They can't drive until 18. Ireland is 17 for both those things. Turkey is 18 for both of these things. What has France or Ireland or Turkey got to do with it? I don't live there. (I do have French Family In France) "I was just showing how France has an even wider gap (15 to 18) than we do for those two activities and 2 other countries have no gap. I think trying to have one age for everything is problematic. What are you going to do with 15 rated movies? The hours 15 year olds can work at the weekends? If you raise the driving age to 18, what will happen to 17 year olds in work who rely on a car to get them there. One age sounds easy but is very difficult to achieve. The age of consent in Europe seems to vary from 14 to 18. You can be sure if these things were easy, the EU would have standardised it a long time ago! Bearing in mind your 'one age' proposal, what do you think it should be? In the UK? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They can have sex legally at 16. Join the Army at 16 (front line at 18). Drive alone at 17. Fly abroad on their own passport between 15-17. Get Married - and civil partnership. Pay Taxes at any age. Yea. Why not. But we should - set ONE age for all those things Why? France doesn't. They can have sex legally there at 15. They can't drive until 18. Ireland is 17 for both those things. Turkey is 18 for both of these things. What has France or Ireland or Turkey got to do with it? I don't live there. (I do have French Family In France)
I was just showing how France has an even wider gap (15 to 18) than we do for those two activities and 2 other countries have no gap. I think trying to have one age for everything is problematic. What are you going to do with 15 rated movies? The hours 15 year olds can work at the weekends? If you raise the driving age to 18, what will happen to 17 year olds in work who rely on a car to get them there. One age sounds easy but is very difficult to achieve. The age of consent in Europe seems to vary from 14 to 18. You can be sure if these things were easy, the EU would have standardised it a long time ago!
Bearing in mind your 'one age' proposal, what do you think it should be? In the UK? "I'd go with 18. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about 15 rated movies? Drivers of cars getting to work at 17? Riders of mopeds getting to work at 17? 16 and 17 year olds drinking alcohol at pub meals with mum and dad? 16 and 17 year olds in consensual relationships who've already had sex? How do you police the abstention they will have to go until they both reach 18? If they take the 21 mile journey to France for their fortnight holiday, they will become legal again for 2 weeks? No weekend work for 15 year olds? No work for anyone until 18? No rented accommodation for 16 and 17 year olds? No lottery /premium bonds for 16 and 17 year olds? No dog walking or cat sitting? Babysitting? Washing cars? Vlogging and blogging? Sports coaching? Retail work? Website design? Delivering newspapers? for 14, 15, 16 and 17 year olds? Plus many more anomalies! Have you thought of the reach and effect of your new One Age policy? " you're right. Kids are having sex, working, driving machines that can kill, looking after kids, (not playing the lottery tho), so are clearly responsible. let's let them vote. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about 15 rated movies? Drivers of cars getting to work at 17? Riders of mopeds getting to work at 17? 16 and 17 year olds drinking alcohol at pub meals with mum and dad? 16 and 17 year olds in consensual relationships who've already had sex? How do you police the abstention they will have to go until they both reach 18? If they take the 21 mile journey to France for their fortnight holiday, they will become legal again for 2 weeks? No weekend work for 15 year olds? No work for anyone until 18? No rented accommodation for 16 and 17 year olds? No lottery /premium bonds for 16 and 17 year olds? No dog walking or cat sitting? Babysitting? Washing cars? Vlogging and blogging? Sports coaching? Retail work? Website design? Delivering newspapers? for 14, 15, 16 and 17 year olds? Plus many more anomalies! Have you thought of the reach and effect of your new One Age policy? " Yea. Let's give them the proper University - Higher Ed' - Vocational Education - every child deserves. Who said they couldn't work? They should be excluded from tax unti 18. Even at 18 they would be working for the next 50 years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Make everything 18: Leaving school Full time work Joining armed forces Driving Getting married (forget the “with permission from parents” at 16) Claiming benefits Etc" We have forgotten the “with permission from parents” at 16. It's been illegal since February 2023. Same questions to you. Moped riders getting to work at 16? To be outlawed? Car drivers getting to work or college at 17? To be outlawed? Measures to assist until they reach 18? There are just over 400,000 17 year olds with licenses. How are you going to manage this? Drinking at 16 with food? 17? All permissible with food in the pub with adults. Who are you to tell 17 year old lads they can't drive to the pub, have a meal and drink with their 16 year old partner, then go home to their own rented accommodation (16) and refrain from sex (16) because you've decided it's 18 for everything! For a self declared liberal centrist, you've suddenly gone very authoritarian! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The UK was the first country to reduce voting age to 18, that had nothing whatsoever to do with psychological development. It had to do with bringing it in line with other levels of responsibility. UK being the first country to set voting age to 18 doesn't matter. There are over 200 countries with minimum voting age as 18. Where do you think the minimum age for "other levels of responsibilities" come from. It has a lot to do with psychological development. Instead of focusing on voting only, you should look at why the number 18 has been seen synonymous with adulthood for multiple things like driving or having alcohol. By a roll of a dice? Not really. A person’s brain is never fully developed, a person’s cognitive capabilities are properly developed by 15-17. A lot of pre frontal cortex functions aren’t ‘fully developed’ until late 20s. So before the age of 18, cognitive capabilities are developed for some and not for others. Some countries with a minimum voting age of 18 have exceptions for the ones younger than 18 who are working and are paying taxes which probably does a good job in identifying the ones who have a reasonable understanding of the outside world and aren't limited by what they are only taught in schools. There is very little difference between the brain of a 16 year old and the brain of an 18 year old. To say that 18 seems like the right age is anti-scientific bullshit that is based on what people ’think’ rather than scientific evidence. There is a very little difference between the brain of a 15 year old and that of a 16 year old too. So why not lower it to 15? We can keep doing this until we let new born babies vote. If I was to go off what I ‘feel’ at this point in my life about 18 year old me having the right to vote and being responsible enough to drive a 2 tonne killing machine around on the roads then I would strongly advise against it! But that’s just old man shouts at clouds bullshit, so rightly I’m not the one to decide! Not saying 18 is the perfect number. But on average, it works well as a baseline age for adulthood. Moving the voting age to 16 is just to get more votes for Labour. I don't understand why anyone has trouble to see through this." Before the voting age came down to 18 in hundreds of countries it was 21, was that the right age because it’s how it was in a lot of countries? What about when nearly every country only allowed men to vote? Or when only landowners had voting rights? Was that right because it was because what most countries did? What about as we get older and our cognitive abilities decline? Cognitive abilities peak at around 30 and start to decline soon after, when we hit around 70 the decline becomes stark, so should we stop people voting when they reach 70? If lowering voting age would increase the Labour vote, which is what I suspect your real issue with changing voting age is, then perhaps Tories should start making things better for young people, to even things out? Whatever the age is should not be based on a ‘feeling’ older people have. Personally I don’t have a problem with it being 16 (it works very well in Austria) or staying at 18, the issue I have is when people pretend it’s based on science or similar evidence. It’s really not, it’s based on what people ‘feel’ nothing else. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Before the voting age came down to 18 in hundreds of countries it was 21, was that the right age because it’s how it was in a lot of countries? What about when nearly every country only allowed men to vote? Or when only landowners had voting rights? Was that right because it was because what most countries did? " The world changed based on how power dynamics changed. Over the last few decades, science was the dominant power in making most of the decisions and most countries chose the age of 18. " What about as we get older and our cognitive abilities decline? Cognitive abilities peak at around 30 and start to decline soon after, when we hit around 70 the decline becomes stark, so should we stop people voting when they reach 70? " There are also plenty of people who have a sound mind over 70. I am all for stopping people without proper mental faculties from voting though. " If lowering voting age would increase the Labour vote, which is what I suspect your real issue with changing voting age is, then perhaps Tories should start making things better for young people, to even things out? " My issue is not that. I am voting Labour myself this time. My problem is with Labour posturing themselves as though they are doing the morally right thing when in reality it's just age based gerrymandering and Labour supporters like you lapping it up like they are doing it for the greater good. End of the day, it's just another power hungry politician doing something to strengthen his power. " Whatever the age is should not be based on a ‘feeling’ older people have. Personally I don’t have a problem with it being 16 (it works very well in Austria) or staying at 18, the issue I have is when people pretend it’s based on science or similar evidence. It’s really not, it’s based on what people ‘feel’ nothing else." On what parameters are you saying that "it works very well" in Austria? It looks like you are the one talking based on feelings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My issue is not that. I am voting Labour myself this time. My problem is with Labour posturing themselves as though they are doing the morally right thing when in reality it's just age based gerrymandering and Labour supporters like you lapping it up like they are doing it for the greater good. End of the day, it's just another power hungry politician doing something to strengthen his power." Exactly this and the left wing lap it up and wrap it up as they do, as an attack on freedoms if you don't agree with their dictating ways. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Make everything 18: Leaving school Full time work Joining armed forces Driving Getting married (forget the “with permission from parents” at 16) Claiming benefits Etc We have forgotten the “with permission from parents” at 16. It's been illegal since February 2023. Same questions to you. Moped riders getting to work at 16? To be outlawed? Car drivers getting to work or college at 17? To be outlawed? Measures to assist until they reach 18? There are just over 400,000 17 year olds with licenses. How are you going to manage this? Drinking at 16 with food? 17? All permissible with food in the pub with adults. Who are you to tell 17 year old lads they can't drive to the pub, have a meal and drink with their 16 year old partner, then go home to their own rented accommodation (16) and refrain from sex (16) because you've decided it's 18 for everything! For a self declared liberal centrist, you've suddenly gone very authoritarian! " Hmmm getting vibes you might be a banned poster using a different name! Hidden profile too with no avatar, bit of a giveaway lol! I believe we should harmonise. Without doubt there are some things that people are perfectly capable of doing b/w 16-17 but I think it would better all round to get alignment. 18 seems a better option (to me) than 16. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Before the voting age came down to 18 in hundreds of countries it was 21, was that the right age because it’s how it was in a lot of countries? What about when nearly every country only allowed men to vote? Or when only landowners had voting rights? Was that right because it was because what most countries did? The world changed based on how power dynamics changed. Over the last few decades, science was the dominant power in making most of the decisions and most countries chose the age of 18. What about as we get older and our cognitive abilities decline? Cognitive abilities peak at around 30 and start to decline soon after, when we hit around 70 the decline becomes stark, so should we stop people voting when they reach 70? There are also plenty of people who have a sound mind over 70. I am all for stopping people without proper mental faculties from voting though. If lowering voting age would increase the Labour vote, which is what I suspect your real issue with changing voting age is, then perhaps Tories should start making things better for young people, to even things out? My issue is not that. I am voting Labour myself this time. My problem is with Labour posturing themselves as though they are doing the morally right thing when in reality it's just age based gerrymandering and Labour supporters like you lapping it up like they are doing it for the greater good. End of the day, it's just another power hungry politician doing something to strengthen his power. Whatever the age is should not be based on a ‘feeling’ older people have. Personally I don’t have a problem with it being 16 (it works very well in Austria) or staying at 18, the issue I have is when people pretend it’s based on science or similar evidence. It’s really not, it’s based on what people ‘feel’ nothing else. On what parameters are you saying that "it works very well" in Austria? It looks like you are the one talking based on feelings." Do you have any evidence that science was used when deciding voting age, or is it that you think it probably was? Who would get to decide who has their faculties at 70 and who doesn’t? If we can use criteria there then why not for under 18s who have the requisite cognition? Why is it you think that 16 year olds don’t have political awareness? Why aren’t they capable of voting for or against things that affect their lives? And why the fuck do you assume a 16 year old would vote for who their parents said to? Have you met any teenagers? In Austria it’s worked well because it’s increased engagement, people who were eligible to vote at 16 have continued to vote in greater percentages than those who were eligible when they became 18. And research shows that 16-17 year olds were just as politically informed as 18-22 year olds. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Before the voting age came down to 18 in hundreds of countries it was 21, was that the right age because it’s how it was in a lot of countries? What about when nearly every country only allowed men to vote? Or when only landowners had voting rights? Was that right because it was because what most countries did? The world changed based on how power dynamics changed. Over the last few decades, science was the dominant power in making most of the decisions and most countries chose the age of 18. What about as we get older and our cognitive abilities decline? Cognitive abilities peak at around 30 and start to decline soon after, when we hit around 70 the decline becomes stark, so should we stop people voting when they reach 70? There are also plenty of people who have a sound mind over 70. I am all for stopping people without proper mental faculties from voting though. If lowering voting age would increase the Labour vote, which is what I suspect your real issue with changing voting age is, then perhaps Tories should start making things better for young people, to even things out? My issue is not that. I am voting Labour myself this time. My problem is with Labour posturing themselves as though they are doing the morally right thing when in reality it's just age based gerrymandering and Labour supporters like you lapping it up like they are doing it for the greater good. End of the day, it's just another power hungry politician doing something to strengthen his power. Whatever the age is should not be based on a ‘feeling’ older people have. Personally I don’t have a problem with it being 16 (it works very well in Austria) or staying at 18, the issue I have is when people pretend it’s based on science or similar evidence. It’s really not, it’s based on what people ‘feel’ nothing else. On what parameters are you saying that "it works very well" in Austria? It looks like you are the one talking based on feelings. Do you have any evidence that science was used when deciding voting age, or is it that you think it probably was? Who would get to decide who has their faculties at 70 and who doesn’t? If we can use criteria there then why not for under 18s who have the requisite cognition? Why is it you think that 16 year olds don’t have political awareness? Why aren’t they capable of voting for or against things that affect their lives? And why the fuck do you assume a 16 year old would vote for who their parents said to? Have you met any teenagers? In Austria it’s worked well because it’s increased engagement, people who were eligible to vote at 16 have continued to vote in greater percentages than those who were eligible when they became 18. And research shows that 16-17 year olds were just as politically informed as 18-22 year olds." Perfect, raise the age of voting to 23 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My life experiences tell me that 16 year old children are not old enough as a catch all, to make life changing decisions, so why give them a vote they will use how their parents want them to vote. Taking onboard other comments I agree there should be an upper limit on voting too. I would be happier if the voting age was tight, 25 - 65 and make it compulsory. " The younger voters were right about Brexit being a bad idea. That was predominantly an older vote demographically speaking. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd add that of you are going to make 18yo do NS, it's not unfair that at least some get a say before that. " Exactly this. It will directly affect them, so they should have a say. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe if schools provided better education about the political framework. And if kids were taught the life skill of critical analysis of information that is presented to them. But then the electorate would be much more difficult to control. So can't see that happening. " Schools are struggling to give basic education as they spend too much time parenting the kid's and trying to keep them in control it's pretty much the wild west in most secondary schools these days. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Do you have any evidence that science was used when deciding voting age, or is it that you think it probably was? " I explained it to you multiple times about how you should not be looking at voting age in isolation. As a society, we generally consider the age of 18 as synonymous to adulthood. License to drive, to drink, to marry. Most of the other things have been influenced by science and voting age is just a part of it. " Who would get to decide who has their faculties at 70 and who doesn’t? If we can use criteria there then why not for under 18s who have the requisite cognition? " If they lack mental faculties, pretty sure the NHS would know it? As for under 18s, we could consider anyone who is working and paying taxes because that shows the person hasn't just been shaped by what he was taught in schools but also by real world experience. " Why is it you think that 16 year olds don’t have political awareness? Why aren’t they capable of voting for or against things that affect their lives? And why the fuck do you assume a 16 year old would vote for who their parents said to? Have you met any teenagers? " Because they lack real world experience. Their knowledge is mostly limited by what they are taught in schools. To make a choice about government needs much more than that. " In Austria it’s worked well because it’s increased engagement, people who were eligible to vote at 16 have continued to vote in greater percentages than those who were eligible when they became 18. And research shows that 16-17 year olds were just as politically informed as 18-22 year olds." One could reduce the voting age to 12 and ask the teachers to take all kids as a field trip to the election booth. That would result in "increased engagement" too. Would you say that it worked well? Which research shows that they are politically well informed? How do they define the term "politically well-informed"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Do you have any evidence that science was used when deciding voting age, or is it that you think it probably was? I explained it to you multiple times about how you should not be looking at voting age in isolation. As a society, we generally consider the age of 18 as synonymous to adulthood. License to drive, to drink, to marry. Most of the other things have been influenced by science and voting age is just a part of it. Who would get to decide who has their faculties at 70 and who doesn’t? If we can use criteria there then why not for under 18s who have the requisite cognition? If they lack mental faculties, pretty sure the NHS would know it? As for under 18s, we could consider anyone who is working and paying taxes because that shows the person hasn't just been shaped by what he was taught in schools but also by real world experience. Why is it you think that 16 year olds don’t have political awareness? Why aren’t they capable of voting for or against things that affect their lives? And why the fuck do you assume a 16 year old would vote for who their parents said to? Have you met any teenagers? Because they lack real world experience. Their knowledge is mostly limited by what they are taught in schools. To make a choice about government needs much more than that. In Austria it’s worked well because it’s increased engagement, people who were eligible to vote at 16 have continued to vote in greater percentages than those who were eligible when they became 18. And research shows that 16-17 year olds were just as politically informed as 18-22 year olds. One could reduce the voting age to 12 and ask the teachers to take all kids as a field trip to the election booth. That would result in "increased engagement" too. Would you say that it worked well? Which research shows that they are politically well informed? How do they define the term "politically well-informed"?" Not every country has those things you are talking about at 18 though, there’s a whole world out there that also has science, it’s not exclusive to the UK. And to be honest it sounds like you’re rather clutching at straws a little and saying it must have a scientific basis, without actually knowing. Oh and in the UK you can drive at 17, not 18. Are you suggesting the NHS checks everyone over 70 every time there’s an election to see if they have the capacity to vote? Why do you keep banging on about ‘real world experience’? You’re sounding like one of those people who think going to university is a waste of time ‘university of life’ and ‘school of hard knocks’ folk. Do you get ‘real world experience’ from going to 6th form? Because they get to 18 and have no ‘real world experience’ whatever that means. Unless you’re suggesting schools exist in some sort of unreal world where everything is rosy and the effects of politics doesn’t intrude? 16 year olds in Austria aren’t taken on a field trip to vote, they make a conscious choice, and they are considerably more likely to keep making that choice than people who’ve had to wait until they are 18. The research, one would assume, was people being asked questions about politics and how things work. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My life experiences tell me that 16 year old children are not old enough as a catch all, to make life changing decisions, so why give them a vote they will use how their parents want them to vote. Taking onboard other comments I agree there should be an upper limit on voting too. I would be happier if the voting age was tight, 25 - 65 and make it compulsory. The younger voters were right about Brexit being a bad idea. That was predominantly an older vote demographically speaking. " That is you simply stating your preferred outcome was supported by the minority. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My life experiences tell me that 16 year old children are not old enough as a catch all, to make life changing decisions, so why give them a vote they will use how their parents want them to vote. Taking onboard other comments I agree there should be an upper limit on voting too. I would be happier if the voting age was tight, 25 - 65 and make it compulsory. The younger voters were right about Brexit being a bad idea. That was predominantly an older vote demographically speaking. That is you simply stating your preferred outcome was supported by the minority." What? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A cynical ploy by Labour to expand their voting base. The young are more susceptible to the socialist pipedream." I think anyone who has been shafted up the arse by this Tory government are more susceptible to the socialist pipe dream as you call it But ffs you won't find a socialist pipe dream in Sir Keir Starmer's pale blue LP he only accepts defecting Tory's | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Not every country has those things you are talking about at 18 though, there’s a whole world out there that also has science, it’s not exclusive to the UK. And to be honest it sounds like you’re rather clutching at straws a little and saying it must have a scientific basis, without actually knowing. Oh and in the UK you can drive at 17, not 18. " It's standardised to 18 in many countries. Before doing all these gymnastics, tell me why you want people aged 16 to vote, but not 15. " Are you suggesting the NHS checks everyone over 70 every time there’s an election to see if they have the capacity to vote? " You don't have to do that every election. If someone has these problems, we would already have the treatment record. If that's too hard, I don't mind having an upper age limit based on statistics, not based on some whims of a politician. " Why do you keep banging on about ‘real world experience’? You’re sounding like one of those people who think going to university is a waste of time ‘university of life’ and ‘school of hard knocks’ folk. Do you get ‘real world experience’ from going to 6th form? Because they get to 18 and have no ‘real world experience’ whatever that means. Unless you’re suggesting schools exist in some sort of unreal world where everything is rosy and the effects of politics doesn’t intrude? " Way to gaslight! How is my argument about not having real world experience to vote somehow related to universities are a waste of time? Schools tend to create an idealistic view of society that is much different from real life. You go to work and you see how many people are just assholes and would fleece others if it helps them. Not to mention the fact that schools in UK are biased by design. Most students go to public schools, the curriculum of which is set by politicians. The school teachers are predominantly left wing too. " 16 year olds in Austria aren’t taken on a field trip to vote, they make a conscious choice, and they are considerably more likely to keep making that choice than people who’ve had to wait until they are 18. The research, one would assume, was people being asked questions about politics and how things work." My point was that them voting more doesn't automatically mean it's better for the country. I am still waiting for the actual research and not your presumptions about the research. I see that you have been dodging my question about Keir Starmer wanting to do this. Do you really think Starmer is doing this for some greater good or do you think he is doing this just to get more votes for Labour? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My life experiences tell me that 16 year old children are not old enough as a catch all, to make life changing decisions, so why give them a vote they will use how their parents want them to vote. Taking onboard other comments I agree there should be an upper limit on voting too. I would be happier if the voting age was tight, 25 - 65 and make it compulsory. The younger voters were right about Brexit being a bad idea. That was predominantly an older vote demographically speaking. That is you simply stating your preferred outcome was supported by the minority." What are you on about  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Not every country has those things you are talking about at 18 though, there’s a whole world out there that also has science, it’s not exclusive to the UK. And to be honest it sounds like you’re rather clutching at straws a little and saying it must have a scientific basis, without actually knowing. Oh and in the UK you can drive at 17, not 18. It's standardised to 18 in many countries. Before doing all these gymnastics, tell me why you want people aged 16 to vote, but not 15. " Nobody is suggesting the voting age be lowered to 15, well apart from you, and please don’t take this the wrong way but you are irrelevant. And before it was standardised at 18 it was standardised at 21, and before that it was standardised as only men, and before that is was standardised as only land owning men. Why do you assume standardisation means correct? And if it does mean correct why does the standard keep changing? " Are you suggesting the NHS checks everyone over 70 every time there’s an election to see if they have the capacity to vote? You don't have to do that every election. If someone has these problems, we would already have the treatment record. If that's too hard, I don't mind having an upper age limit based on statistics, not based on some whims of a politician. " Cognitive decline is not a medical condition the NHS treats for, dementia is but the two things are not the same. Cognitive decline is just a thing that happens, your brain just gets worse at doing what it’s meant to do. No one will have a record of that, despite it happening to everyone. " Why do you keep banging on about ‘real world experience’? You’re sounding like one of those people who think going to university is a waste of time ‘university of life’ and ‘school of hard knocks’ folk. Do you get ‘real world experience’ from going to 6th form? Because they get to 18 and have no ‘real world experience’ whatever that means. Unless you’re suggesting schools exist in some sort of unreal world where everything is rosy and the effects of politics doesn’t intrude? Way to gaslight! How is my argument about not having real world experience to vote somehow related to universities are a waste of time? Schools tend to create an idealistic view of society that is much different from real life. You go to work and you see how many people are just assholes and would fleece others if it helps them. Not to mention the fact that schools in UK are biased by design. Most students go to public schools, the curriculum of which is set by politicians. The school teachers are predominantly left wing too. " The government for the last 14 years has been right wing, getting more right wing the longer it has been in power, so are you saying that the curriculum has got more right wing over the last 14 years? And what is it about sixth form that is so good at giving people ‘real world experience’? Oh and educational attainment is closely correlated with how people vote. The better educated people are far more likely to not vote for right wing parties but I’m sure that’s all a big conspiracy financed by ‘Big Education’ " 16 year olds in Austria aren’t taken on a field trip to vote, they make a conscious choice, and they are considerably more likely to keep making that choice than people who’ve had to wait until they are 18. The research, one would assume, was people being asked questions about politics and how things work. My point was that them voting more doesn't automatically mean it's better for the country. I am still waiting for the actual research and not your presumptions about the research. " Are you saying that more people exercising their democratic right to vote is a bad thing? " I see that you have been dodging my question about Keir Starmer wanting to do this. Do you really think Starmer is doing this for some greater good or do you think he is doing this just to get more votes for Labour?" Did you ask a question or did you make a statement? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Nobody is suggesting the voting age be lowered to 15, well apart from you, and please don’t take this the wrong way but you are irrelevant. " I am not suggesting it. If there is truly some logical reason to reduce it to 16, why are we stopping at 16? Why not reduce further? " And before it was standardised at 18 it was standardised at 21, and before that it was standardised as only men, and before that is was standardised as only land owning men. Why do you assume standardisation means correct? And if it does mean correct why does the standard keep changing? " Pretty sure I have answered this before. Standards change as a society's values change. " The government for the last 14 years has been right wing, getting more right wing the longer it has been in power, so are you saying that the curriculum has got more right wing over the last 14 years? " They have been right wing only in name for over a decade. Only in the last year, they scrambled around to do some real right wing changes. Weren't they trying to change the rules about sex-ed and gender related teaching? If a hardcore right wing party comes to power, gets rid of all public schools and forces private schools to teach evils of socialism for a few years, would you still be willing to support voting at 16? Or is it just convenient for you now? " Oh and educational attainment is closely correlated with how people vote. The better educated people are far more likely to not vote for right wing parties but I’m sure that’s all a big conspiracy financed by ‘Big Education’ " The relationship between education and politics depends is a classic case of correlation doesn't imply causation. " Are you saying that more people exercising their democratic right to vote is a bad thing? " No I am not. I meant it doesn't automatically mean good thing either. We could give votes for five year olds too. More people will be exercising their democratic rights. They will probably go by their favourite colours to choose the party. Is that a good thing? " Did you ask a question or did you make a statement?" It was a question. I still don't see an answer | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Nobody is suggesting the voting age be lowered to 15, well apart from you, and please don’t take this the wrong way but you are irrelevant. I am not suggesting it. If there is truly some logical reason to reduce it to 16, why are we stopping at 16? Why not reduce further? And before it was standardised at 18 it was standardised at 21, and before that it was standardised as only men, and before that is was standardised as only land owning men. Why do you assume standardisation means correct? And if it does mean correct why does the standard keep changing? Pretty sure I have answered this before. Standards change as a society's values change. The government for the last 14 years has been right wing, getting more right wing the longer it has been in power, so are you saying that the curriculum has got more right wing over the last 14 years? They have been right wing only in name for over a decade. Only in the last year, they scrambled around to do some real right wing changes. Weren't they trying to change the rules about sex-ed and gender related teaching? If a hardcore right wing party comes to power, gets rid of all public schools and forces private schools to teach evils of socialism for a few years, would you still be willing to support voting at 16? Or is it just convenient for you now? Oh and educational attainment is closely correlated with how people vote. The better educated people are far more likely to not vote for right wing parties but I’m sure that’s all a big conspiracy financed by ‘Big Education’ The relationship between education and politics depends is a classic case of correlation doesn't imply causation. Are you saying that more people exercising their democratic right to vote is a bad thing? No I am not. I meant it doesn't automatically mean good thing either. We could give votes for five year olds too. More people will be exercising their democratic rights. They will probably go by their favourite colours to choose the party. Is that a good thing? Did you ask a question or did you make a statement? It was a question. I still don't see an answer " Is it tiring creating all these strawmen? I mean it shows a certain level of desperation, and it’s amusing but is it tiring? You’ve said yourself that we’ve changed voting age as society changes, and it’s 60 years since we adopted 18 as the minimum voting age, so maybe it’s time for another change? Society has changed immeasurably since 1963, we are applying a standard from 60 years ago. We’ve decriminalised homosexuality, got rid of the death penalty, we’ve had the race relations act, equality act, disability discrimination act, same sex marriage act. All things that have improved society. It’s interesting that you are confident that correlation does not equal causation when it comes to the education levels of people who don’t vote Tory but are convinced that correlation would equal causation when it comes to how 16 year olds would vote over how say 18 year olds vote. Carry on clutching at those straws, it will help with the strawmen
As for Starmer’s reasoning, who knows? But as a couple of years ‘real life experience’ changes how people vote, in your eyes, does it matter that much?
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My life experiences tell me that 16 year old children are not old enough as a catch all, to make life changing decisions, so why give them a vote they will use how their parents want them to vote. Taking onboard other comments I agree there should be an upper limit on voting too. I would be happier if the voting age was tight, 25 - 65 and make it compulsory. The younger voters were right about Brexit being a bad idea. That was predominantly an older vote demographically speaking. That is you simply stating your preferred outcome was supported by the minority. What are you on about "I have no idea now I have read back my reply! Absolutely no idea, I must have read your response as something completely different! As you were, move on please. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I also feel that making schools teach politics is just asking for trouble. Why? Just look at how many adults do not understand how things work, what mayors do, what the local council does, what parliament does, what the HOL does, what the EU does. If the electorate as a whole is better educated about their political framework that's surely a good thing. " Agreed but it would need to be a very strict syllabus to avoid teachers pushing their political opinions on to students and then that wouldnt allow for much discussion/ debate/ interesting education , just a list of how it works (which i think is already in the modern studies syllabus or it at least was when i did it) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Before the voting age came down to 18 in hundreds of countries it was 21, was that the right age because it’s how it was in a lot of countries? What about when nearly every country only allowed men to vote? Or when only landowners had voting rights? Was that right because it was because what most countries did? The world changed based on how power dynamics changed. Over the last few decades, science was the dominant power in making most of the decisions and most countries chose the age of 18. What about as we get older and our cognitive abilities decline? Cognitive abilities peak at around 30 and start to decline soon after, when we hit around 70 the decline becomes stark, so should we stop people voting when they reach 70? There are also plenty of people who have a sound mind over 70. I am all for stopping people without proper mental faculties from voting though. If lowering voting age would increase the Labour vote, which is what I suspect your real issue with changing voting age is, then perhaps Tories should start making things better for young people, to even things out? My issue is not that. I am voting Labour myself this time. My problem is with Labour posturing themselves as though they are doing the morally right thing when in reality it's just age based gerrymandering and Labour supporters like you lapping it up like they are doing it for the greater good. End of the day, it's just another power hungry politician doing something to strengthen his power. Whatever the age is should not be based on a ‘feeling’ older people have. Personally I don’t have a problem with it being 16 (it works very well in Austria) or staying at 18, the issue I have is when people pretend it’s based on science or similar evidence. It’s really not, it’s based on what people ‘feel’ nothing else. On what parameters are you saying that "it works very well" in Austria? It looks like you are the one talking based on feelings. Do you have any evidence that science was used when deciding voting age, or is it that you think it probably was? Who would get to decide who has their faculties at 70 and who doesn’t? If we can use criteria there then why not for under 18s who have the requisite cognition? Why is it you think that 16 year olds don’t have political awareness? Why aren’t they capable of voting for or against things that affect their lives? And why the fuck do you assume a 16 year old would vote for who their parents said to? Have you met any teenagers? In Austria it’s worked well because it’s increased engagement, people who were eligible to vote at 16 have continued to vote in greater percentages than those who were eligible when they became 18. And research shows that 16-17 year olds were just as politically informed as 18-22 year olds." Edinburgh and Sheffield universities did a study on Scots having a vote from 16 and it showed the same results re engagement though it fell off as they got older. Not sure if it's been studied re Wales who also introduced 16 yr old registering to vote. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“No taxation without representation.” Either give them the vote at 16 or remove their tax contributions. " Does that work both ways? No respresentation without taxation? If you dont put in you dont get a say? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My life experiences tell me that 16 year old children are not old enough as a catch all, to make life changing decisions, so why give them a vote they will use how their parents want them to vote. Taking onboard other comments I agree there should be an upper limit on voting too. I would be happier if the voting age was tight, 25 - 65 and make it compulsory. The younger voters were right about Brexit being a bad idea. That was predominantly an older vote demographically speaking. " And yet the younger vote in scotland was introduced to try get independence through. Which is basically mini Brexit I dont think you can say one voter group is always right or always better than the other. They will vote for what is right for them at the time and what is eight for them is likely to change as their life experience and perspectives change over time | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Is it tiring creating all these strawmen? I mean it shows a certain level of desperation, and it’s amusing but is it tiring? " I don't know. You just said I said more people getting right to vote is a bad thing. That's the definition of strawman. So you tell me. Is it tiring? " You’ve said yourself that we’ve changed voting age as society changes, and it’s 60 years since we adopted 18 as the minimum voting age, so maybe it’s time for another change? " Yes. And when they change voting age, it's usually reasoned out as to why the current society needs the change. People don't change voting age just for the sake of it. If you want the change, the onus is on you tell us why this change makes sense and why you are stopping with 16. Why not 15? There must have been some thought process which would have gone into this right? " Society has changed immeasurably since 1963, we are applying a standard from 60 years ago. We’ve decriminalised homosexuality, got rid of the death penalty, we’ve had the race relations act, equality act, disability discrimination act, same sex marriage act. All things that have improved society. " These changes were well reasoned out. I can use your same argument and say that we should allow people to have lions as pets. You will ask me why as any normal person would. Hence I am asking you why. For every good change you suggest, I can come up with numerous bad changes too. " It’s interesting that you are confident that correlation does not equal causation when it comes to the education levels of people who don’t vote Tory but are convinced that correlation would equal causation when it comes to how 16 year olds would vote over how say 18 year olds vote. " I still stand with correlation doesn't imply causation. In the last election, the working class voted conservative. That won't be the case in the next election. That wasn't the case before the last two elections too. It's more about ground issues which are important for that election for each economic class and less about education status. But the left likes to sneer at anyone voting right as being uneducated and have the audacity claim that they love egalitarianism. As for 16 year old school children being left wing, young people are idealists. It takes some real life experience to ground them as realists. I was hardcore leftie myself until about 23. Almost everyone in my class was too. " As for Starmer’s reasoning, who knows? But as a couple of years ‘real life experience’ changes how people vote, in your eyes, does it matter that much? " A politician is making such a huge change in the democratic process. The "why?" part of it is important I would say. Pretty much anyone who is non-partisan would look at this and say that he is doing because he wants to increase his vote share. Starmer and labour supporters including you know it for sure and you are happy about this kind of gerrymandering. But you would rather do these mental gymnastics to tell us how it's for the greater good instead of accepting the real motivation for this change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I absolutely believe that there should be no taxation without representation, so if you're old enough to handle the government dip their fingers in your pay packet you should at least be able to choose which government does the taking You could teach politics in school. I understand people would be concerned about the teacher's bias influencing the children but whoever teaches them (schools / parents) you will impart your bias upon them, whether consciously or subconsciously " You know what this is the first actual valid reason I've read for 16 being allowed to vote, however we were all 16 at one point and tbh I was as dumb as a bag of squirrels at this age,yes I'd left home and was working full time but I don't think I was grounded enough to vote. Maybe 1 in a 1000 might be emotionally mature enough to vote but generally across the board I don't think 16 year olds are. And in general as a people of any age most are not politically aware to advise our children because that's what they are,who they should vote for. I'd imagine that whoever seems cool enough or who their mates are voting for will get the vote. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am still wedded to the idea of harmonising everything to 18. Becoming an adult is then a right of passage, I can leave school, I can work full time, I can drive, I can fight for my country, I can drink/buy alcohol, I can smoke, I can buy porn, I can get married, I can pay taxes, I can vote! Compulsory school education to 18 that includes some “citizenship” studies for all (covering all of the above plus politics to prepare for adulthood). " Fully agree. Votes at 16 is a cynical ploy to try and maximise Labour votes in future elections. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
