Labour wants to let 16 & 17 year olds vote? Watch

HassanD
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
I am starting to read up on politics seeing as the elections are coming up and I can vote this year.

I have been looking at Labour's policies and so far quite a few seem to be making sense but I just came across this one and I just can't get my head around it...

"We will give 16 and 17 year olds the vote – making sure that 1.5 million young people have the right to vote in time for May 2016, the first set of elections after the next General Election – and make sure that schools, colleges and universities do everything possible for students to be registered to vote."

Excluding the 16 & 17 year olds on TSR (:P) have they not seen what the majority of them are like? All you have to do is get on a bus in London after school is over.

I am all for everyone having a say but to an extent. I remember when I was 16/17, 1 in a 100 actually gave a damn about politics because they were interested in general or because they studied a subject related to politics for A levels (AS). Most of people of this age group would end up voting for who their parents vote for.

Does anyone see the logic behind this move and agrees with it? If so why?
1
reply
AdamskiUK
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Youth correlates with naivety. The younger you are, the less likely you are to have held down a real job/mortgage and the less likely you are to understand that, when you start working, losing 20-30%+ of your earnings to income tax/NI instantly is pretty significant.

You see the loss of £30 student allowance/inc. tuition fees and vote as a lefty because Labour 'promise' that they'll return it, and you think that it's fair. It's in Labour's best interests to allow younger people to vote, that's all. In reality, it puts us further into debt, debt which us young people will have to resolve as we get older. The way they plan on funding the drop in tuition fees from £9k to £6k is by hitting pensioners, state and private. The pensioners are more likely to vote right-wing anyway because they have developed an understanding of business and life from experience. Labour doesn't care about upsetting this particular demographic and show this by protesting against the removal of annuities that the Tories have just pushed through (annuities being something which screwed over every pensioner going).

Do I agree with 16/17 y/o being given the vote? That depends on how it's campaigned. I don't know what my answer would be, honestly.

I don't like the Conservatives per se, I think they're all dodgy and corrupt in general. Still, they are a hundred million times better than a left-wing, Labour/SNP government.

The thought of a Labour (and SNP coalition) government actually scares me.
4
reply
username1221160
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
I'm fine with 16/17 year old being given the franchise. It is the ages where the drip of adult rights/responsibilities start to happen and they are able to live independently from their parents.
0
reply
mojojojo101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
There's two parts to this as as I'm concerned;

-Labour electioneering to try and claw back the u25s they lost to the LibDems (I dont think it will work).
-The foolish belief that disengagement with politics is caused by young people not being able to vote when the answer lies more directly in the policies purieed by both Labour and Tory governments over the last 2 decades.

For what its worth I think if your capable of paying tax (which you are at 16) then you should be able to vote on how that money is spent.
0
reply
Zander01
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by AdamskiUK)
Youth correlates with naivety.
funny how that moralistic stance doesn't come into play when encouraging 16 year olds and younger into joining the armed forces, don't you think? :rolleyes:

if you can married, drive a car and join the army at 17 then you should be able to vote.
2
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by Zander01)
funny how that moralistic stance doesn't come into play when encouraging 16 year olds and younger into joining the armed forces, don't you think? :rolleyes:

if you can married, drive a car and join the army at 17 then you should be able to vote.
Not getting into the general debate about voting rights, as I find the arguments of both sides rather vacuous, but your point is flawed: you can marry with parental consent; you can join the army, but you won't be in a combat situation. And I don't see what car ownership should have to do with voting rights.
0
reply
zippity.doodah
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
wow. so, they're going to force 16 and 17 years olds back to school until they're 18...yet they think they're ready to vote.
what the ****ing **** labour
0
reply
Arkasia
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
Naturally 16/17 year olds know little about politics or life, so are generally more idealistic. As the poster above stated, Labour are appealing to naivety.
0
reply
Zander01
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by gladders)
Not getting into the general debate about voting rights, as I find the arguments of both sides rather vacuous, but your point is flawed: you can marry with parental consent; you can join the army, but you won't be in a combat situation. And I don't see what car ownership should have to do with voting rights.
The point is responsibility. Which is what it ultimately comes down to. If you can't see that then...


You've demonstrated quite clearly that you're concerned over this due to the likelihood of the youth voting for left wing parties. (Which you correlate with naivety which I find to be amusing)

Seems like the right wingers aren't too keen on engaging youth in politics and eradicating the disillusionment of politics by the UK public. After all, why should they when it doesn't benefit them first and foremost?

Not that right wingers are infamous for being selfish
0
reply
ChickenMadness
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
nice. Maybe schools will teach useful stuff now.
0
reply
Zander01
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by Arkasia)
Naturally 16/17 year olds know little about politics
Which wouldn't be the case if they were allowed to vote. Why should they know, or care about politics if they cannot get involved in the process?

Just keep on making excuses.

The results of the independence referendum also contradict your ridiculous and poorly thought argument.
2
reply
Zander01
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
It's also hilarious how people accuse the youth of being naive yet insist the elderly are not.

Also despite the fact that young people generally have a larger distribution of information available to them.
0
reply
AdamskiUK
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by Zander01)
funny how that moralistic stance doesn't come into play when encouraging 16 year olds and younger into joining the armed forces, don't you think? :rolleyes:

if you can married, drive a car and join the army at 17 then you should be able to vote.
Sorry, can you tell me who encourages 16/17 year-olds to sign up to the forces? MoD cuts have recently been translated into a reduction in the proportion of regular services to reserve forces. Nobody encouraged my year to sign up. Careers advisors in my school seemed to actively deflect us away from considering it and barely any of my year went in.
0
reply
DorianGrayism
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by HassanD)
Does anyone see the logic behind this move and agrees with it? If so why?
Well, it makes perfect sense for Labour. Younger people are more left wing and are more likely to vote for them.

I don't really see the point. The average 16 year old hasn't even bought their own toilet paper, let alone have enough knowledge/life experience to make an informed decision.
2
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
If anything 18 is too young. In the olden days you would be out at work at 14, if this relationship between real life and voting rights had been kept most people wouldn't be voting until they were in their thirties.

However it is also important that it is not only working-age people who can vote. They are the most selfish and least informed because they are time-poor and need to stay above water.

All things considered 18 is probably about right.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
Pretty sure people have already said, but the logic is that they tend to be young and idealistic, this much is obvious from looking at this site and the 18-25 vote, sure there is a lot of Lib Dem and green, but most importantly for Labour is a good chunk more Labour than Conservative, they're still young, naive, and stupid

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
As a 16 year old, I think I deserve to have the right to vote. Why should the next 5 years of my life, arguably the most important years of my life, be determined by everyone else without getting a say. I'll agree that the majority of 16-17 year olds are immature and apathetic, but the fact is, there will always be immature and/or apathetic people at every age. The fact that I can go and start a family or get married, but can't put a cross in a box on a piece of paper is ridiculous.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by Zander01)
Which wouldn't be the case if they were allowed to vote. Why should they know, or care about politics if they cannot get involved in the process?

Just keep on making excuses.

The results of the independence referendum also contradict your ridiculous and poorly thought argument.
(Original post by Zander01)
It's also hilarious how people accuse the youth of being naive yet insist the elderly are not.

Also despite the fact that young people generally have a larger distribution of information available to them.
Hear hear!

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
James Milibanter
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Pretty sure people have already said, but the logic is that they tend to be young and idealistic, this much is obvious from looking at this site and the 18-25 vote, sure there is a lot of Lib Dem and green, but most importantly for Labour is a good chunk more Labour than Conservative, they're still young, naive, and stupid

Posted from TSR Mobile
Have you seen the number of Tories on this site?
1
reply
aoxa
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
Labour just want to give 16 and 17 year olds the vote because they think that that age group will be more predisposed to voting for them. More votes, more seats, better chance to win. That's all there is behind it.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (115)
66.09%
No I haven't decided yet (35)
20.11%
Yes but I might change my mind (24)
13.79%

Watched Threads

View All