Under 18's and self determination
-
Posts
-
Leaving all of the above aside……….I’m not sure at what age people should vote. It used to be 21 and now it’s 18. Some suggest 16 using the lame argument that youngsters don’t engage. I don’t like 16 because I don’t particularly like 18. If 16, why not 14…or 12. Ideally, a successful democracy needs people who understand the issues……..but that’s a laugh as well. Perhaps stick with 18 but add to it those who are paying taxes or rates over 16. That has an amazingly educational effect
[quote=144188]
I’m aware of that, but every day parlance is still “CRB check”, hence my use of it. [/quote]
Really ? I’ve found that amongst those of us that have been DBS checked, the every day parlance is ‘DBS check’. I guess you still listen to the BBC Home Service ? ;)
[quote quote=144193]Leaving all of the above aside……….I’m not sure at what age people should vote. It used to be 21 and now it’s 18. Some suggest 16 using the lame argument that youngsters don’t engage. I don’t like 16 because I don’t particularly like 18. If 16, why not 14…or 12. Ideally, a successful democracy needs people who understand the issues……..but that’s a laugh as well. Perhaps stick with 18 but add to it those who are paying taxes or rates over 16. That has an amazingly educational effect[/quote]
Agreed
[quote quote=144193]Leaving all of the above aside……….I’m not sure at what age people should vote. It used to be 21 and now it’s 18. Some suggest 16 using the lame argument that youngsters don’t engage. I don’t like 16 because I don’t particularly like 18. If 16, why not 14…or 12. Ideally, a successful democracy needs people who understand the issues……..but that’s a laugh as well. Perhaps stick with 18 but add to it those who are paying taxes or rates over 16. That has an amazingly educational effect[/quote]
Spot on as most times Alun :)
I think I realise and the general population realise why Tories and closet Tories are against lowering the voting age to 16 for elections.
In the last couple of years we as a nation have witnessed a dramatic rise in social conscience as illustrated by the number of young people who ARE engaging in political matters and taking a stance on the total inequalities purveyed by the encumbent government.
I watched David Lidington at last Wednesday’s PMQ’s where he floundered when trying to put a reasoned argument as to why Tories do not support the proposed change. What he failed to mention was that Tory party members have a right to vote when electing a new party leader at 15. Is it so different to voting for a Member of Parliament to represent his constituents
The fact of the matter is, is that the traditional blue rinse, old electors are drawing ever closer to drawing their last breath and the Tories are petrified that their traditional supporters are diminishing on a daily basis. Fact is, it scares them to death.Th suggestion made by Alun that persons aged 16/17 be permitted to vote if they are paying taxes rates is obscene in the extreme. Perhaps we should disenfranchise those that in receipt of state benefits or earning less than £20K to help ensure that the Tories would be more likely to retain a tenuous foothold on power.
We are all citizens of this Country and for the older population to shape the future of our descendants is both corrupt and morally wrong. The future belongs to our children and our children’s children.I can’t see how the idea of being a Tory (or not) has crept into this argument Benjamin. It’s great that young people are imbued with social conscience but that doesn’t mean that we should move the goalposts on voting merely because people appear to care about issues all of a sudden. Caring and understanding are two different matters and I’m not actually sure at what age it is wise to allow youngsters to vote. The suggestion about Rate paying or tax paying was somewhat tongue in cheek but the idea behind it was that at least those who did these two things were perhaps showing signs that they had moved from one stage of life (childhood) to another (adulthood). A good example of this links in with the discussion about student fees where I have seen little real debate involving youngsters about the implications of waiving the fees when perhaps 50% of the population are attending University. How many of those supposedly imbued with social conscience actually understand the old left wing adage of needs and abilities and that the real losers in waiving University fees would be the more vulnerable in society.
But we digress. The real issue is whatever age we come up with is arbitrary and I would be very uncomfortable with 16
Throwing my 10p in the pot on this one.
The argument people generally employ when saying no to those that promote votes at 16 is that they believe that those who are 16 are either, 1) Immature, 2) Politically volatile, 3) Politically uneducated or (my most hated phrase in the English Language) 4) A lack of life experience.
I think the above generally surmises the argument. However,these days especially… how many people over the age of 18 (or 21 for you of the opinion) can truly pass the above test?.
Politics isn’t just about jobs, health, education and pensions – whilst they are all immensely important issues, politics is about debate and discussion and social & civic leadership – for all three of those points, you need a range of individuals involved and engaged.
A crude point could be made that even if 10% of those aged between 16 and 18 voted, that’s still X amount more opinions than previously heard, yes it may reduce the overall percentages, but let’s get MORE people engaged first, then worry about the stats at the end.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
