Best political party for our generation (under 25s)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60

The_Internet

That depends on your political persuasion, no? For the time being, I'd vote tory

Reply 61

Burridge

Original post by Falcatas

Labour are more economically illiterate than I thought. Government doesn't create jobs, businesses do. Giving 16 year the ability to vote is silly as they should be focusing on the already existing electorate in which the overall turnout is only about 2/3.

Odd how Labour think 16 year olds are mature enough to vote but not mature enough to leave compulsory education.

Government doesn't create jobs? Weird, I thought that's what the whole of the public-sector was founded to do.

And I honestly don't even see how that's an argument against extending the franchise. I believe 16 and 17 year olds are capable enough to vote; if they choose not to then that's up to them. Even if only 10% of them actually exercised their right to vote then it's been a success - democracy is good! :smile:

Reply 62

Burridge

Original post by TimmonaPortella

The Tories are the best political party for every generation.

With the exception of older voters, the Tories don't really care about any generation. It's a little cliche, but they're concerned about class and wealth; they're the party of big-business, fat cats and the middle (and upper) class. That's my take on it anyway. They'll do their best to convince the electorate that they represent the interests of everyone (just look at their recent attempts to rebrand the party as the "Workers Party"), but that's just to win votes - fundamentally, I believe, they're concerned about the welfare of the most affluent members of society.

Original post by gideon123

the green party is just a bunch of vegetarian, sandal-wearing ultra femminst women, with armpit hair.

Well, considering that they're the highest polling party on the Vote for Policies website (over 22% of the vote), the amount of ultra-feminists with armpit hair is worrying! :eek:

Reply 63

TimmonaPortella

Original post by Burridge

I think the freedom to trade and not be taxed and regulated into the ground is an important right for everyone, whether or not you're actually utilising it, and regardless of whether this constitutes a net material benefit for people who are not trading on their own account. I do not accept that 'representing the interests of our generation/class' is synonymous with 'taking stuff from them and giving it to us'. I am more worried about having a party in government which is full of people who believe that the government should protect citizens' autonomy, rather than override it for their own good. I don't want the government to 'care' if 'caring' means more forcible control of people's affairs, whether this is controlling their ability to enter into contracts with moneylenders, preventing them from using fixed odds betting machines 'too much', telling them how to spend their pensions, raising alcohol duties, or anything else. I trust the conservative party to exercise more restraint in terms of what it bans and what it regulates, in short. I will not get into specifics because I don't have time and we won't get anywhere anyway, but there in very summary terms is why I am very unlikely ever to vote for anyone other than the tories however daft their comments about religion, the EU, human rights, or anything else get.

I was actually about to respond to you re extending the franchise to younger voters. I must say I would be more in favour of raising the voting age. 16-17 year olds have not looked after themselves, for the most part. They have not had full time jobs and they have not paid significant sums of tax. I would say that, in general, 16-17 year olds are too young and ignorant to be trusted with a decision like that. I am aware that this view is very unfashionable at the moment. But the idea of trusting the typical sixteen year old with this kind of decision seems to me foolish.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 64

Falcatas

Original post by Burridge

Of course the government doesn't create jobs. More job creation in the public sector doesn't increase tax revenue because the government is using taxpayer money to create those jobs. Maintaining various public sector institutions is fine but just throwing money at them doesn't do much good.

There aren't many 16 and 17 year actually wanting to be able to vote, I bet there are a lot more than would rather be able to buy alcohol. The reason 16 and 17 year should not be able to vote is because they are children. Why aren't 16 and 17 year olds able to buy alcohol and tobacco? Because they are children! If you grant them the vote then you should also grant them ability to buy such things and sign contracts (ie treat them as adults).

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 65

anarchism101

Original post by Falcatas

The reason 16 and 17 year should be able to vote is because they are children. Why aren't 16 and 17 year olds able to buy alcohol and tobacco? Because they are children! If you grant them the vote then you should also grant them ability to buy such things and sign contracts (ie treat them as adults).

We grant them legal permission to have sex, leave school and have full time jobs at 16, and the right to drive at 17. Do none of these things constitute treating them like adults?

Reply 66

Falcatas

Original post by anarchism101

We grant them legal permission to have sex, leave school and have full time jobs at 16, and the right to drive at 17. Do none of these things constitute treating them like adults?

In 2015 the compulsory education age will be 18.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/parents/education_after_16/

" from September 2013 the education leaving age will rise to 17 and from 2015 it will rise again, to 18."

Age of consent being 16 is different than age of being able to buy alcohol (18) as it very hard to stop dedicated teenagers from having sex (even ones under 16). Interestingly however those under 18 are still deemed more vulnerable than those above 18. It is illegal for a person in to have sex with someone under the age of 18, if that person is in a position of trust.

Sure 17 year olds can drive, not sure how and why that was decided.

16 years can do other things like legally marry but they need parental permission.

Regardless however, I don't see why let them vote if they are unable to make the full array of adult decisions on their own such as buying alcohol and many of the reasons I mentioned before.

Politicians who suggest giving 16 years the vote are just doing it for themselves. If they really wanted to empower 16 years old they would treat them as adults and let them do all the things 18 years can do.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/16_year_olds_arent_adults_why_give_them_the_vote/14104#.U1RI6PldX8h

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 67

sma0712

Almost certainly greens.

I don't agree with 100% of their policies - but still a lot more than the other parties.

They also have "young greens" for under 18s.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 68

billydisco

Original post by russellsteapot

Conservative. Because every party seeks to create more of its own voters when it gets into power, and it's much better to be a typical tory voter. Labour creates welfare dependency and piles the country into debt, Lib Dems haven't got a clue, Conservatives are the only proper party left.

This. Irrefutable

Reply 69

Moosferatu

If you're going to have money when you're older, silly money that is, not middle class money, then vote one of the big three.

If not, then you're ****ed. None of the major parties will defend your rights or standard of living. Unless of course you can deliver them a fat wedge. Perhaps by selling a kidney.

Reply 70

Rakas21

Original post by Moosferatu

To be fair the standard of living of living has risen for all income groups until 2007 and probably will start to again within the next few years.

Reply 71

Inazuma

Original post by Sunny_Smiles

UKIP (in my opinion)

awh man I even liked you and your posts till now

Reply 72

Sunny_Smiles

Original post by marinaim

awh man I even liked you and your posts till now

Spoiler

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 73

Moosferatu

Original post by Rakas21

To be fair the standard of living of living has risen for all income groups until 2007 and probably will start to again within the next few years.

In what ways do you think it will rise? It's looking pretty dire at the minute for the squeezed middle.

Reply 74

Rakas21

Original post by Moosferatu

In what ways do you think it will rise? It's looking pretty dire at the minute for the squeezed middle.

Well if we ignore rising house prices and borrowing then it all comes down to the cost of living and wages. Wages and disposable income should both increase for the middle classes in the next few years, tax and benefit changes will have some effect but not an overwhelming one.

The squeezed middle are also not that squeezed to begin with anyway. It's the lower working classes who are suffering from the highest inflation, highest cuts to welfare and low wages.

UKIP.

Original post by Rakas21

Perhaps we should abolish help to buy so companies actually have an incentive to make supply match demand?

Reply 77

Rakas21

Original post by The Dictator

Perhaps we should abolish help to buy so companies actually have an incentive to make supply match demand?

Before help to buy house building was at the lowest levels since around 1920 so i'm not convinced the private sector is capable under the current tax and regulatory regime. I agree that we should end help to buy and remove taxation from home building but after that i do believe that state intervention (building social housing) will be required albeit i think keeping the right to buy is very important if this occurs.

Reply 78

Inazuma

Original post by Sunny_Smiles

what is there tax policy that favours 65 years old, though? I never remember them saying anything about that

I'll let you in on a secret-
That's because they have no real policies
:redface:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 79

Sunny_Smiles

Original post by marinaim

I'll let you in on a secret-
That's because they have no real policies
:redface:

Posted from TSR Mobile

1) EU referendum :tongue:

2) tightened border; points based immigration system
3) no tax on the minimum wage
4) no inheritance tax
5) more defence spending
6) more prisons
7) flat rate of tax
8) immigrants to support themselves for 5 years before welfare

ed miliband's policies: "less cuts~"
cameron's policies: "more of the same"
nick clegg: "vote for me and I'll do what I want"