Conservative Party after the election

[nw1]

They would also be responsible enough to be treated as adults from that age then? No more 'children' until 18?

Well the railway treats them as adults when it comes to fares.

If you have to pay full fares like an adult, why not have the right to vote like an adult?

 

[Gloster]

I don't think 16 is too silly either. They can work, they can get married, yet they can't vote.

Not since 27 February 2023. The minimum age was raised to 18 in the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act of 2022.

 

[AlterEgo]

It says here 16 is the youngest age to enter the Forces, so if someone's considered old enough to fight for their country it's probably reasonable to allow them to vote.

Non-deployable until 18, and it's important to recognise that children who join up before they are 18 must do so with parental consent.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 May 2024 ==

I don't think 16 is too silly either. They can work, they can get married, yet they can't vote.

You can work at age 13, should I have had the vote when I was doing my paper round?

All children up to age 18 must be in some form of education or training; 16 year olds are not working full time.

 

[Purple Train]

Speaking as someone who is between 16 and 18, I think it's not the worst idea I've ever heard (with half an eye on the national service plan), but I definitely can't support it. Personally, the ability to have a say in the democratic processes of the country is the best indicator of whether one should be considered an adult or not, and, on balance, I would rather keep the voting age at 18 than come of age at 16. And, simply, personally speaking, I feel like I don't yet have enough lived experience to cast a considered vote, nor do I feel I have the maturity (he says reading through his past Forum posts!)

I have heard it argued that it would do something to quell political apathy amongst younger people, but I'm not sure I quite see how 16 would be a magic number for that, either. Is there a particular reason why one might be more politically active during one's A-levels?

 

[nw1]

You can work at age 13, should I have had the vote when I was doing my paper round?

All children up to age 18 must be in some form of education or training; 16 year olds are not working full time.

Fair enough, I will confess I am a bit out of touch (in my day, which was quite a long time ago admittedly, 16 year olds could do full-time work).

 

[birchesgreen]

Speaking as someone who is between 16 and 18, I think it's not the worst idea I've ever heard (with half an eye on the national service plan), but I definitely can't support it. Personally, the ability to have a say in the democratic processes of the country is the best indicator of whether one should be considered an adult or not, and, on balance, I would rather keep the voting age at 18 than come of age at 16. And, simply, personally speaking, I feel like I don't yet have enough lived experience to cast a considered vote, nor do I feel I have the maturity (he says reading through his past Forum posts!)

I got bad news for you about most of the electorate.

 

[Busaholic]

Not since 27 February 2023. The minimum age was raised to 18 in the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act of 2022.

I actually got married before I could ever cast my vote in an election, I was 18 in 1966 but the Age of Majority remained at 21 until 1970, otherwise I could have voted in the 1966 General Election. I married aged 21 in 1969 and had to wait for the GE of 1970 before I first entered a polling station.

If we're casting votes on such things, I wouldn't agree with the voting age being reduced from 18.

 

[WelshBluebird]

And, simply, personally speaking, I feel like I don't yet have enough lived experience to cast a considered vote, nor do I feel I have the maturity (he says reading through his past Forum posts!)

And why do you think someone magically gets those things by turning 18?

 

[deltic]

The latest large scale poll suggests the Tories will be almost wiped out with most of their big names including Penny Mourdant losing their seats.

 

[brad465]

The latest large scale poll suggests the Tories will be almost wiped out with most of their big names including Penny Mourdant losing their seats.

Well, if you live by the sword...

 

[AlterEgo]

And why do you think someone magically gets those things by turning 18?

They don’t get it by magic at any age, but you do need a cut off. Adulthood seems pretty reasonable. I wouldn’t have given 16 year old me the vote.

All of this arguing about paying tax or whatever misses the point. Voting is not a merely transactional thing where people just choose the party who will give them the most money or rights. It’s a question of wisdom. I don’t like Labour (and I don’t vote Tory, ever) and have routinely abstained from lending them my vote, but it is time for someone else to have a go at running the country. A party whose ideas haven’t been totally cannibalised and everything tainted.

That is more beneficial for the country than Tories for yet another term even if Labour are underwhelming and boring. That’s how I see it anyway. My own selfish interest would see me vote Tory every time, but it isn’t a question of how much tax I would like to pay. I’d like to live in a better and fairer society.

 

[takno]

They don’t get it by magic at any age, but you do need a cut off. Adulthood seems pretty reasonable. I wouldn’t have given 16 year old me the vote.

All of this arguing about paying tax or whatever misses the point. Voting is not a merely transactional thing where people just choose the party who will give them the most money or rights. It’s a question of wisdom. I don’t like Labour (and I don’t vote Tory, ever) and have routinely abstained from lending them my vote, but it is time for someone else to have a go at running the country. A party whose ideas haven’t been totally cannibalised and everything tainted.

That is more beneficial for the country than Tories for yet another term even if Labour are underwhelming and boring. That’s how I see it anyway. My own selfish interest would see me vote Tory every time, but it isn’t a question of how much tax I would like to pay. I’d like to live in a better and fairer society.

I always find it a bit odd that the Tories have managed to get self interest painted so narrowly. A couple of grand saved on tax doesn't even begin to make up for having a health service which struggles to keep me alive, and all other public services being a disaster area. My self interest isn't purely decided by a couple of quid on or off National Insurance

 

[The Ham]

One point about the voting age, under normal circumstances general elections come around every 4 years (maybe 5, but 4 also makes the maths easier, also I'm ignoring the small shifts between the number of people born each month, so we're only talking in whole year's), as such the average age that someone currently is when they can first vote it's actually 20.

If the voting age is reduced to 16, the average age that they could first vote would be 18.

Yes there'll be some who vote on their 16th birthday, but there'll be others who'll vote just before their 20th birthday.

If we had the Australian system of mandatory voting reducing the age might be of greater concern, however with it being a free vote, the likelihood of someone with no interest in politics voting is reduced.

Even with the Australian system, I'd probably most expect a few more spoilt ballot papers rather than it resulting in many votes for silly reasons.

Sometimes a vote for a silly reason is actually not that bad - see Count Binface and the Monster Raving Loony Party (both have had good policies from time to time).

 

[nw1]

I actually got married before I could ever cast my vote in an election, I was 18 in 1966 but the Age of Majority remained at 21 until 1970, otherwise I could have voted in the 1966 General Election. I married aged 21 in 1969 and had to wait for the GE of 1970 before I first entered a polling station.

Never knew 18-20 year olds were shut out of voting pre-1970.

I'd have been prevented from voting in 1992 had that been in force. Good job that went the way of other archaic nonsense such as homosexuality being illegal. 1965-75 or so was a very progressive period, it seems.

 

[317 forever]

The Conservatives are - depending on how much they get thumped - probably likely to have a good couple of years licking their wounds, regrouping and developing a more centrist / sensible platform to be able to challenge Labour in the mid-2030s.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 May 2024 ==



Unlikely. Normally most parties have a shelf-life of 15-20 years (Thatcher/Major was 18, Blair/Brown was 13). So we'd expect them to at worst be in power early '40s. I imagine the next Tory [insert right wing party] PM will probably be someone born in the 20th century.

Of course if the party completely implodes/splinters then that's another matter!

If recent history repeats itself, the next Tory Prime Minister will be from the 2028/29 intake of Tory MPs.

The party leaders to defeat incumbent Prime Ministers post-1979 have been Tony Blair (elected an MP in 1983), David Cameron (elected as an MP in 2001), and - assuming he gets in - Keir Starmer (elected an MP in 2015).

 

[Donny Dave]

Hopefully, Rishi Sunak will still be the leader of the party after the election. He has been badly hampered by the 3 terrible prime ministers before him, who between them left nothing but division, scandal and chaos in their wake!

Despite this handicap, Rishi has tried to get on with the job, preferring to talk to people in order to get things done (such as the Windsor Framework), and not resort to soundbites and demands issued through the media.

 

[317 forever]

Hopefully, Rishi Sunak will still be the leader of the party after the election. He has been badly hampered by the 3 terrible prime ministers before him, who between them left nothing but division, scandal and chaos in their wake!

Despite this handicap, Rishi has tried to get on with the job, preferring to talk to people in order to get things done (such as the Windsor Framework), and not resort to soundbites and demands issued through the media.

He will have to remain Tory party leader, if he retains his seat but no other Tory MPs are elected.

 

[edwin_m]

Hopefully, Rishi Sunak will still be the leader of the party after the election. He has been badly hampered by the 3 terrible prime ministers before him, who between them left nothing but division, scandal and chaos in their wake!

Despite this handicap, Rishi has tried to get on with the job, preferring to talk to people in order to get things done (such as the Windsor Framework), and not resort to soundbites and demands issued through the media.

I doubt he will remain. He'll probably resign immediately after being defeated, and if he doesn't, nearly everyone in the party will blame him for it and he'll be forced out quite quickly. Even though his predecessors bear at least as much of the blame as he does.

 

[BrianW]

It could be a close run thing ...

"The Tories could win just 66 seats in the general election, the first MRP poll of the campaign suggests"

Tories face being reduced to 66 seats, new poll suggests

First MRP analysis of the campaign puts the Conservatives on course for their worst electoral performance ever

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[cb a1]

All children up to age 18 must be in some form of education or training; 16 year olds are not working full time.

I believe that only applies in England - https://www.gov.uk/child-employment

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I don't think the Tories will be wiped out, there will be a rump in the blue-rinse suburban seats which won't contemplate Labour or Reform.
Labour will be hobbled to some extent by the Lib-Dems in some areas (eg south west seats), and it's unpredictable in Scotland.
Labour can always throw it away with infighting.
The Tories also usually play the defence card at some point.
But I expect Labour to get a working majority - then they will have to appoint a cabinet and publish some policies.

 

[dosxuk]

It could be a close run thing ...

Between the Lib Dems and the Tories for second place

 

[Bald Rick]

Hopefully, Rishi Sunak will still be the leader of the party after the election. He has been badly hampered by the 3 terrible prime ministers before him, who between them left nothing but division, scandal and chaos in their wake!

Despite this handicap, Rishi has tried to get on with the job, preferring to talk to people in order to get things done (such as the Windsor Framework), and not resort to soundbites and demands issued through the media.

There is no chance he is staying.

 

[nw1]

Well I believe I saw one of the local Tory candidates today; not my constituency but a nearby one. Chap with a blue rosette, maybe around 55 to 60. The incumbent is standing down so they have a new one.

(Does a rosette automatically indicate candidate, incidentally, or can it merely indicate one of their team?)

 

[simonw]

Well I believe I saw one of the local Tory candidates today; not my constituency but a nearby one. Chap with a blue rosette, maybe around 55 to 60. The incumbent is standing down so they have a new one.

(Does a rosette automatically indicate candidate, incidentally, or can it merely indicate one of their team?)

It means one of their team or the candidate.

 

[Horizon22]

It could be a close run thing ...

"The Tories could win just 66 seats in the general election, the first MRP poll of the campaign suggests"

Tories face being reduced to 66 seats, new poll suggests

First MRP analysis of the campaign puts the Conservatives on course for their worst electoral performance ever

www.telegraph.co.uk

They’ll get over 100 (and more like 150), this is a very rogue poll.

 

[takno]

They’ll get over 100 (and more like 150), this is a very rogue poll.

The fact that it's by a relatively new polling company and done for GB news makes me suspect that some of the assumptions might have been tweaked for an extreme outcome.

It's interesting because it illustrates how weak nstional polls and uniform swings can be, and why politicians spend so much time on focus groups and really specific messaging which on the face of it doesn't resonate. The range of possible outcomes is really quite wide.

 

[edwin_m]

The fact that it's by a relatively new polling company and done for GB news makes me suspect that some of the assumptions might have been tweaked for an extreme outcome.

It's interesting because it illustrates how weak nstional polls and uniform swings can be, and why politicians spend so much time on focus groups and really specific messaging which on the face of it doesn't resonate. The range of possible outcomes is really quite wide.

The polling they commission is likely to be around identifying the relatively small groups of people in swing seats that actually influence the outcome, and (together with the focus groups) to identify what promises might appeal to those groups. That's why so many on the left are so fed up with Starmer promising things that seem more like Tory policies.

 

[dosxuk]

They’ll get over 100 (and more like 150), this is a very rogue poll.

It's not actually that out there. Most of the MRP polls, which in the previous two elections (the only ones since this methodology was created) have given the most accurate results, are showing a similar wipe-out result for the Conservatives.

That said, I would be very surprised if they do actually get less than 100 seats. I suspect the MRP methodology isn't particularly well tuned for a landslide projection and is overestimating the number of seats that will change hands - as well as the inevitable tightening of the result that will happen towards polling day (this isn't to say the Tories have any chance of winning - just they have a good chance of not losing so badly).

 

[nw1]

They’ll get over 100 (and more like 150), this is a very rogue poll.

I'm going for more than 200 seats for the Tories, essentially a reverse of the 2019 result with more Lib Dem seats.

Rural seats, East Anglia, and the more socially-conservative areas of the Home Counties will still go Tory, I suspect. And I'd expect quite a few holds in the SW, albeit with some Lib Dem gains too.