Labour wants to let 16 &amp; 17 year olds vote?

Original post by HigherMinion

I just finished a lovely juicy and tender steak followed by a selection of classic Spanish puddings whilst chugging down a soberano. It was a very generous measure. I care passionately about life. Politics is nothing. You should enjoy these next two years sin responsibilidad.

I care passionately about my future. The next 5 years will influence my life heavily. Yet, I have no choice in the matter.

How nice was the steak on a scale of 1 to 10? :tongue:

Reply 102

HigherMinion

5

Original post by PetrosAC

I care passionately about my future. The next 5 years will influence my life heavily. Yet, I have no choice in the matter.

How nice was the steak on a scale of 1 to 10? :tongue:

Well, it would be a damn shame for the masses of ignorant and unengaged sixteen year olds to screw with your quality of life, eh?

Out of all the steak I've ever had, that was one of them. 9/11.

Reply 103

Original post by HigherMinion

Well, it would be a damn shame for the masses of ignorant and unengaged sixteen year olds to screw with your quality of life, eh?

Out of all the steak I've ever had, that was one of them. 9/11.

The unengaged 16 year olds wouldn't bother voting, so they wouldnt screw with my quality of life :tongue:

Reply 104

looseseal

11

If they have the ability to pay tax on their earnings then they should have the opportunity to decide what that money is spent on. It's pretty simple really.

The argument that 16 and 17 year olds aren't knowledgeable about the world/politics doesn't really wash with me to be honest. If it was a requirement for people to be clued-up on politics in order for them to be allowed to vote then over half the current electorate shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Most of the people who take issue with this policy are Tories who believe it will give an upper hand to Labour in future elections as an overwhelming proportion of young people are left-wing. Your own political allegiances should never be a reason for preventing someone from voting.

Reply 105

Original post by looseseal

If they have the ability to pay tax on their earnings then they should have the opportunity to decide what that money is spent on. It's pretty simple really.

The argument that 16 and 17 year olds aren't knowledgeable about the world/politics doesn't really wash with me to be honest. If it was a requirement for people to be clued-up on politics in order for them to be allowed to vote then over half the current electorate shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Most of the people who take issue with this policy are Tories who believe it will give an upper hand to Labour in future elections as an overwhelming proportion of young people are left-wing. Your own political allegiances should never be a reason for preventing someone from voting.

Damn right they shouldn't
Nor should the fact that they're going to make it easier for you to won am election be reason to give somebody the vote, do you think labour and the nationalist parties support the policy because they think it fair?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 106

looseseal

11

Original post by Jammy Duel

Damn right they shouldn't
Nor should the fact that they're going to make it easier for you to won am election be reason to give somebody the vote, do you think labour and the nationalist parties support the policy because they think it fair?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Well the reality of the situation is that they are allowed to vote. One group shouldn't be punished due to the inadequacy of another in my opinion.

And of course they don't have completely honest intentions but the difference is they're not trying to restrict 16 and 17 year olds "democratic" rights. Whereas right-wingers seem to be displaying some quasi-fascist tendencies by trying to prevent them from voting based on set of flimsy criteria.

I agree that at present the democratic process in this country isn't perfect as a large proportion of the electorate aren't "educated". But the way to counteract this is through giving them education and what better way to start that education by teaching 16-17 year olds in school the UK political system in addition to giving them skills to critically assess policies. If they have the ability to vote they'll be a lot more conducive to the differing concepts they're introduced to during lessons.

We might manage to raise of generation of young adults who aren't completely apathetic to politics and actually go out and vote!

Reply 107

Original post by looseseal

Well the reality of the situation is that they are allowed to vote. One group shouldn't be punished due to the inadequacy of another in my opinion.

And of course they don't have completely honest intentions but the difference is they're not trying to restrict 16 and 17 year olds "democratic" rights. Whereas right-wingers seem to be displaying some quasi-fascist tendencies by trying to prevent them from voting based on set of flimsy criteria.

I agree that at present the democratic process in this country isn't perfect as a large proportion of the electorate aren't "educated". But the way to counteract this is through giving them education and what better way to start that education by teaching 16-17 year olds in school the UK political system in addition to giving them skills to critically assess policies. If they have the ability to vote they'll be a lot more conducive to the differing concepts they're introduced to during lessons.

We might manage to raise of generation of young adults who aren't completely apathetic to politics and actually go out and vote!

Who educates them, or, more importantly, who decides how to educate them, hmmm?
The system would be open to abuse and I would say would be somewhat overbearing, I would say that it should include making economics compulsory. In essence there are two ways to formally educate it: the half arsed way that would favour Labour and those even further left; and the thorough way that would put people off and be good for the Tories, Kippers and perhaps lib dems

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 108

InArduisFouette

Income Tax - if you have sufficient income you can be taxed at any age.

Armed Forces 16 year olds are in training establishments , 17 year olds are in trainee roles.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 109

HigherMinion

5

Original post by PetrosAC

The unengaged 16 year olds wouldn't bother voting, so they wouldnt screw with my quality of life :tongue:

There is always the risk factor with enforced voting like Down Under, or new 'politics' classes in school which introduce children to a biased pro-government view of the world. Why do you think everything that is right wing is deemed evil by the common man until they age a bit? Why they love the idea of high taxation and an inflated welfare state, until they start earning themselves.

I don't want 'politics' classes in schools, I want children to learn about their people's liberties from their family.

Reply 110

Pwyll

9

As regards the usual arguments on the lines of '16 year olds can do X, there they should be allowed to vote,' these arguments are almost always fallacious. I study politics at A-Level, and whenever this issue is raised, there's usually at least one individual who mentions the ability to join HM Armed Forces or getting married. The foremost flaw of this line of argument is that while it is possible to do those things as a 16 year old, parental permission is required up until the age of 18.

Hence, the argument they should be making is that under 18s ought to be able to vote, with parental consent.

Reply 111

Original post by Pwyll

As regards the usual arguments on the lines of '16 year olds can do X, there they should be allowed to vote,' these arguments are almost always fallacious. I study politics at A-Level, and whenever this issue is raised, there's usually at least one individual who mentions the ability to join HM Armed Forces or getting married. The foremost flaw of this line of argument is that while it is possible to do those things as a 16 year old, parental permission is required up until the age of 18.

Hence, the argument they should be making is that under 18s ought to be able to vote, with parental consent.

I'll again bring up this point.

16 year olds pay tax, shouldnt they be able to choose how its spent/who spends it?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 112

Original post by PetrosAC

I'll again bring up this point.

16 year olds pay tax, shouldnt they be able to choose how its spent/who spends it?

Posted from TSR Mobile

And I'll bring up this point again: so do people younger than 16.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 113

Original post by Jammy Duel

And I'll bring up this point again: so do people younger than 16.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Only VAT. At 16, you can work full time

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 114

Original post by PetrosAC

Only VAT. At 16, you can work full time

Posted from TSR Mobile

Tax is tax, or are you suggesting that the T part of VAT is a misnomer?

Reply 115

wrexham

Got no problem with 16 year olds being allowed to vote just as long as they accept this makes them adults and as such if they break the law they will be tried as adults and if convicted sentenced as adults. If they accept that then OK.

Reply 116

hotshot45

1

They have suggested reducing the voting age because younger people are generally more
Likely to vote labour, life hasn't yet taught them that the idea behind Marxism is a romantic fairy tale and that the facts of life don't support it.

Reply 117

HigherMinion

5

Original post by hotshot45

and that the facts of life don't support it.

Facts are a social and oppressive construct.

Reply 118

hotshot45

1

Original post by HigherMinion

Facts are a social and oppressive construct.

Are you trying to be philosophical suggesting facts are nothing but an illusion created by society? This is true to an extent but more so for big left wing- Marxist ideologies which are impose by government will up onto a nation, and use propaganda to make people believe the facts they want them to. In a middle right free market, this is not the case.

Reply 119

ChaoticButterfly