MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Folks,
According to our dear beloved PM Brown he would like to propose the age of voting to 16 in the future.
I don't know about you but does that mean the country is going to be ruled by teens? I mean do we need to suck up celebrities now? Assuming that what attracts young voters.
Children make the rules. More pops please! More sugar please! We don't like maths so don't teach us maths. We like pop idols so could we have a degree course in pop idols please.
Discuss.
👿
that does imply somewhat that the voters can directly influence policy... which seems to be a capability which is sadly lacking.
lets have some proper electoral reform: proportional representation!
Dave
I hear they may ban bad shoes, including CLarks.
Seriously though did anyone hear about pupil involvement gone too far - kids on interview panels for teachers, making them sing etc WTF.
[i]I don't know about you but does that mean the country is going to be ruled by teens?[/i]
No. Why do you think teen votes will be decisive? They will be a factor in elections, nothing more.
[i]I mean do we need to suck up celebrities now?[/i]
No, because:
[i]Assuming that what attracts young voters.[/i]
Is a silly, snide assumption.
[i]Children make the rules. More pops please! More sugar please! We don't like maths so don't teach us maths. We like pop idols so could we have a degree course in pop idols please.[/i]
Do you know any 16 year olds?
What a daft post. Try harder. 🙄 😀
Interestingly there's an article on this in the Economist this week - the idea that old people vote fairly consistently, and generally fairly conservatively. The idea is that by lowering the voting age to 16 there's a wider base for parties like Labour to get excited.
The problem is that the majority don't bother, and those that do are more likely to go for far-right parties.
FIAL on all counts, really - don't let people who can't drink, drive or own a home a say in how the country's run! 😉
Some 16 year olds have fairly sensible views on what will be directly affecting them within the next election period.
Many have utterly stupid views, easily swayed by peer pressure, stupid assumptions, historical data bearing no relation to future policy and family loyalty.
Same as adults then I suppose!
It would be a good thing if you ask me. You can do a lot of "adult" things by the time you're 16, so why note be able to vote too? Younger people will have different voting motives than adults so it would give a broader spectrum of opinion I reckon.
I think we would send less young people to wars if teens were in control - turkeys voting for christmas and all that
Dunno, but we wouldnt be in this mess if they could have voted in previous elections.
Which 16yr old would have voted for labour, the party who was going to saddle 50% of them with £15,000 of student debt?
Given the small number of adults voting, a bunch of slightly less apathetic teenagers might do a better job!
Dunno, but we wouldnt be in this mess if they could have voted in previous elections.
Don't think it would have changed things in the slightest. Unless we perhaps had PR.
Show me a young conservative and I'll show you a man without a heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you a man without a brain. attrib Churchill
[i]When you are young your mind is wide and your waist is narrow. These reverse as you age.[/i]
Let them vote. I'd take the opinion of fresh minded 16/17 year old over a stuck in there way, 40 something, IT managing, Audi driving cynic who rides a 6in "trail bike" any day!
If the discussions I've heard between my 2 teenage daughters [both voting for the first time] is representative - I think it needs raising to 30 😀
Totally sick of canvassers already - there's 6 in our house with a vote now so they must think they've hit the mother load when they look at our address
Currently you can be old enough to go into military service, but not able to vote for the buggers that might send you off to die.
If we're going to have arbitrary age-related cut offs, might as well be 16 as 18.
Anyone know why 18 is the age at the moment? (I found out the other day that 65 is the "retirement age" because a German chancellor was setting up a soldiers' pension scheme and 65 was the average age at which old soldiers died!)
Currently you can be old enough to go into military service, but not able to vote for the buggers that might send you off to die.
Always been that way. Anyway, you're there to serve, not to be concerned about the politics that sent you there.
Anyone know why 18 is the age at the moment? (I found out the other day that 65 is the "retirement age" because a German chancellor was setting up a soldiers' pension scheme and 65 was the average age at which old soldiers died!)
I’m just imagining a squad of 65year old infantrymen doing fire and manoeuvre in full fighting order! 😆
No front line soldiers under the age of 18 BTW AFAIK. Sign up at 16, but can't "go off to die" until you're 18.
As a teacher type I'd be slightly concerned. The 16-18 yr old sector are just as likely as any other to have daft/sensible ideas however..... when they have a vote the slightest remark made by a teacher within 6 months of a general election that could possibly be deemed to have any political context (state of the roads, economic policy, pretty much anything really - related to the subject they are teaching or not) is bound to be jumped on as political canvassing. Discussing the weather for 6 months could be very dull.
taxation = representation.
You can do a lot of "adult" things by the time you're 16, so why note be able to vote too? Younger people will have different voting motives than adults so it would give a broader spectrum of opinion I reckon.
Yeah, and often not be capable of dealing with the fall-out from any of them. The wider opinion spectrum is always handy, I want my taxes based on a teenagers choice of who has the best facebook page.
Quite frankly I was one of the most mature (boring) and politically aware amongst my friends at school/college, and I wouldn't have considered my opinions then to have been at all seriously thought through, why would I trust the rest of societies kids to be more thoughtful about it than I was?
A kind of demographic gerrymandering, perhaps?
Currently you can be old enough to go into military service, but not able to vote for the buggers that might send you off to die.
No, apparently you won't see a combat zone until you're 18.
We don't like maths so don't teach us maths
That's basically how grownups vote, except it's not maths teachign it's their job/house/tax bill etc.
[i]why would I trust the rest of societies kids to be more thoughtful about it than I was?[/i]
This is fair enough, but before women had the vote it was assumed that they couldn't vote sensibly, same with those without property. They were definitely wrong about the women, and allowing those who didn't own anything to vote changed British politics immensely, on balance probably for the better.
I rather assume that many 16-17 year olds wouldn't vote, and that their voting might be unpredictable, a bit whimsical and perhaps not terribly well informed about the issues that matter to me. That doesn't necessarily mean that it owuldn't make a positive difference to British politics and government to have them voting.
Also, a huge number of adults have the vote who are stupider and vastly more ignorant than I am, but I reckon I have to let them vote. Even when they may have considerably more to gain at my expense from (for example) a huge hike in the top rate of income tax than I can ever hope to gain from my voting preferences translating into government policy. 16 year olds aren't (needn't be) stupid, and actually engaging with them and getting them voting might improve the quality of their thinking. I don't think there's a huge difference between 16 and 18 for these purposes. 12 would be a different matter I guess. 🙂
That's basically how grownups vote, except it's not maths teachign it's their job/house/tax bill etc.
Speak for yourself 🙂
16 year olds aren't (needn't be) stupid, and actually engaging with them and getting them voting might improve the quality of their thinking. I don't think there's a huge difference between 16 and 18 for these purposes. 12 would be a different matter I guess.
No, I never said stupid, I said naive and not well thought out (as I agree some adults are), but you could extend that to absurdity, how well do you think any age group has a grasp on things. The point is that at 16 you've not even had to deal with your own finances, you own taxes and your own work before, and there's no likelyhood of that changing.
Please God no. It was bad enough having to listing to ****ing D-Ream in '97; can you imagine what would happen? ****ing N-Dubz or some other Godawful shit. 🙁
Also, a huge number of adults have the vote who are stupider and vastly more ignorant than I am, but I reckon I have to let them vote
That's Mighty White of you... 🙄
Splitting hairs that you don't go to war until 18. If you do go at just 18 you still are very unlikely to have had the chance to choose the government that sends you off. My point was general - society deems you old enough to serve, but not old enough to choose.
Considering that the legitimate electorate has thousands of BNP supporters, xenophobes, Daily Mail Readers and so-on I can't see how the complexion would be significantly altered for the worse by bringing in sixteen and seventeen year olds. It may well improve, in fact.
at 16 I could join the army, at 17 I could kill, at 16 I could ride a moped on the road, fill it with highly taxed fuel, pay insurance and buy a tax disc. at 17 I could drive a car and enjoy all the responsibilities that come along with that. At 16 I can have children and get married. Most importantly, at 16 I paid tax.
Rather than naively believing daily mail-esque rants against children, why not consider the rhetoric behind allowing 16 year olds to vote?
Splitting hairs that you don't go to war until 18. If you do go at just 18 you still are very unlikely to have had the chance to choose the government that sends you off. My point was general - society deems you old enough to serve, but not old enough to choose.
Society deems you able to make decisions for yourself but not for everyone for a few more years until you have experience, seems fairly fair to me.
Rather than naively believing daily mail-esque rants against children
I'm not believing any rants, I'm working from my own position that at that age I was not able or willing to fully grasp the details without being "taught" about it first. I was one of those kids who people would assume would join the school politics club. I thought I knew everything and I thought I knew what I felt. I've sinced grown up and realised my opinions have changed somewhat with a little experience.
My uncle saw active service as a 15 yr old cabin boy in the merchant navy during WWII - he joined up in 1939
He was on the Russian & North Atlantic convoys among other things
He went to sea because his mum said the pit was too dangerous
When the war finished he was still too young to vote in the 1945 general election by a couple of weeks
My uncle saw active service as a 15 yr old cabin boy in the merchant navy during WWII - he joined up in 1939
He was on the Russian & North Atlantic convoys among other thingsHe went to sea because his mum said the pit was too dangerous
When the war finished he was still too young to vote in the 1945 general election by a couple of weeks
And? How does quoting anchient historical annecdotes help here?
why not consider the rhetoric behind allowing 16 year olds to vote?
They can't even wear their trousers properly, and you want to give them the Vote? 😯
And? How does quoting anchient historical annecdotes help here?
I think Uplink is making the point that this man was deemed old enough to risk his life for his country, but on his return, not old enough to have any sort of democratic voice. I think it's a fair and valid point, actually.
I think Uplink is making the point that this man was deemed old enough to risk his life for his country, but on his return, not old enough to have any sort of democratic voice. I think it's a fair and valid point, actually.
I know exactly what his point was, but it isn't valid today as you would not be put in that situation these days (so I am told by someone "on the inside" so to speak). You might undergo all the training, and possibly work in the country of the war, but you wouldn't be put in realistic harms way. Apparently. WWII was a slightly different era.
And? How does quoting anchient historical annecdotes help here?
Hardly ancient, he's 86 this year & would still box your ears for you 🙂
I was making the exact point as talkemada said, for no other reason than it's a good story & sort of fitted in with the discussion - feel free to ignore it.
Reply above 😀
Hoody-hug-a-Hoody?
as the population ages the influence will shift to the older generation anyhow
this man was deemed old enough to risk his life for his country, but on his return, not old enough to have any sort of democratic voice. I think it's a fair and valid point, actually
I dunno if it is to be honest. Being in the navy could involve some pretty basic jobs - although I dunno what a cabin boy does. Voting requires you to understand politics, and they've rightly or wrongly decided you need to be 18.
I don't see how the two things are related to be honest.
Being in the navy could involve some pretty basic jobs - although I dunno what a cabin boy does.
like getting torpedoed by U boats [twice]
I imagine 16 year olds are as able as a lot of older people to make the decision. Besides as already said they are old enough to do a lot of other things so perhaps they should have a say. The sceptic in me says that GOrdon has worked out that a large proportion of them would vote Labour, same way non of the two main parties are likely to puush through proportional representation or other reforms that would ultimately disadvantage them.
Voting requires you to understand politics, and they've rightly or wrongly decided you need to be 18.I don't see how the two things are related to be honest.
I deduce, from Uplink's earlier post, that his granddad would have been almost 21 by the end of WW2. It was 1969, I think, when the age was reduced to 18.
I understand Uplink's point.
I know about the voting age, TM. Still stands tho. A serviceman does many things.. but voting isn't some kind of reward for service, is it? I didn't think that was how it worked.
Yep more sheep/zombies to vote controlled by media.
Sure make it 16...
Pretty much Talkemada
He spent the entire war at sea as a boy & a young man & faced exactly the same perils as anyone else on the ship
He needed to be 21 by a certain date & missed it by weeks
TBH - he wasn't bothered, the only thing that peed him off about it later was the fact that he didn't participate in the great Labour landslide of 1945
but voting isn't some kind of reward for service, is it?
****ing should be. People like that fought, risked their lives and died so that we can argue now!
How many 16 year olds do you think are actually going to want to vote? Can't see this making any difference really.
No, voting's a right for us all, scumbags or heroes.
What I meant was, that being old enough to fight/risk life/possibly die should be old enough to have the right to vote.
I'm a bit tired actually. I think I might have a little nap.
Did someone mention beer?
I think we need the teens to make up for the increasing ossified weight of the wrinklies! Otherwise we'll slide into moneygrabbing conservatism 🙁
taxation = representation.
anyone who spends money pays taxes... (unless it's just on drugs)
Young people don't spend their money on anything else, SFB! They pinch all the sweets, booze and fags off their parents and the local shops.
Apparently...
For a change SFB makes a good point. Youthful altruism needs representation.
More to the point, if people are engaged earlier they might not go around their whole lives totally disillusioned with it all.
Voting requires you to understand politics, and they've rightly or wrongly decided you need to be 18.I don't see how the two things are related to be honest.
Entering an engineering degree requires you to have a good understanding of higher maths (a level at least), or significant experience in the field. While some rare 14 year olds do grasp it pretty well, it takes most of us until we're 17/18 to grasp it properly, and some can enter direct from industry after apprenticeship.
I don't see politics being much different. You might, at 16, understand that 1+1=2, but can you do calculus, politically speaking? As there are, as far as I know, no GCSEs in politics (could be wrong!), I would assume it best to take the apprenticeship route, and have some experience before being let loose with the designers pen/mouse. I don't see how you get the experience required without a period of dealing with adult situations and expectations.
Children giving birth to children then becoming parents then vote ...
👿