Votes for 16

[Bromley boy]

Yes, this. Hiding views is dangerous. They should be public, and if they are seen as bad be challenged equally publically. But then I'm a US-style free speech purist. IOW, say what you like, but if you say something nasty like racist etc I'm going to call you an idiot, and so hopefully is every other right-thinking person.

You (generic you) have the right to express any view you like. I have the right to call you (not you personally!) an idiot just as publically.

I believe this was DarloRich’s statement, although I fully agree with it.

Apologies for my incompetence with the cutting and pasting system!

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Yes, this. Hiding views is dangerous. They should be public, and if they are seen as bad be challenged equally publically. But then I'm a US-style free speech purist. IOW, say what you like, but if you say something nasty like racist etc I'm going to call you an idiot, and so hopefully is every other right-thinking person.

You (generic you) have the right to express any view you like. I have the right to call you (not you personally!) an idiot just as publically.

Free speech is amazing isn't it? Even though it technically allows people to spout racist or xenophobic speech it doesn't protect them from backlash. It's simple really, either keep silent or be prepared for a challenge. You already kind of summed it up in a nutshell

On that note I'd also like to mention one other thing. The term 'respect my/your opinion' is a poor use of words if you ask me. Yes, I respect somebody's RIGHT to hold an opinion, but why should I respect something that I don't stand for and in fact find despicable? For example, why should I respect the Nazi's belief that there is a superior race even though genetically we are all scientifically classified as Homo sapiens? I'm sure many of you will agree with me there.

 

[deltic]

You're not asked to die for your country at 16 though are you, as everybody knows that cannot happen until 18 at least.

While only 18 year olds can serve on the front line it is not only front line personnel who are at risk in a war situation and it's not clear what front line means. Can under 18s go on patrol when the army replace police at time of heighten security - are under 18 on sentry duty at high risk establishments. Can under 18s sail on a navy vessel? If so what happens if it has to sail into an unexpected war zone?

 

[DarloRich]

That’s a very emotive choice of words. That smacks more of tribalism than rationality, to me.

I know a few Labour voters. As they are people I like and respect, I wouldn’t dismiss them as fools.

I wouldn’t hold myself out as a Tory either, they’ve done and said a lot I fundamentally disagree with. I’m probably somewhere in the middle these days.

I agree it is emotive. It is difficult to see good people treated very badly, especially those close to you, and remain detached.It is very difficult to subscribe to a suggestion that such unpleasantness was for the best. perhaps you have been lucky and not seen the real result of these policies.

Really?

Yes - just meant it was a large family. No offense intended.

But have you read the postings above about no platforming in universities? That is the source of these criticisms.

I have - i just don't agree with the interpretation and nor do I agree with "no platforming". From my experience the law would be more interested in your threats of violence rather than your religious views.

But can you see the inherent conflict here. What if my religious views prescribe violence to homosexuals, or non believers?

At what point does my right to hold religious views trump (or get trumped) by another person’s right to be gay (and note, uniform sexual orientation, religion is not a biological choice - I would argue it shouldn’t be immune from criticism or afforded protected status.)

I do indeed - it is lucky we live in a liberal democracy where rights can be expressed and freely challenged. The trumping comes when you suggest violence to assert your views over others groups in our society with similar rights. Holding religious beliefs is not a problem. Suggesting violence to others because of them is.

With all due respect, there are a great many highly educated, highly intelligent “religious types”. You seem to love putting people into boxes.

There are. I know a couple. One of my best friends from school is a Methodist minster. If we are to live in a society where religious freedom is a right then the converse must be my right to critisice religion and reject it entirely.

That’s a statement, not an argument. You need to advance an argument as to why you believe that to be the case.

The suggestion is preposterous. It reflect the kind of hyperbole loved by the Daily Mail. The reality is different. As I have indicated expression of religious belief is not the issue. The incitement of violence is. I woudl expect that to be the case regardless of the religion

But it was you that you refused his previous request to elaborate on your comment that his well reasoned post was “utter rubbish”

But it is rubbish - the suggestion was that teachers are brainwashing children to express leftist views and so 16 year olds should not vote. I pointed out, several times, it is my view that views are more commonly developed in the home environment and are influenced more by your parents than your teachers. Again, it is also the type of silliness loved by the Daily Mail and lapped up by their readers.

 

[DarloRich]

I believe this was DarloRich’s statement, although I fully agree with it.

Apologies for my incompetence with the cutting and pasting system!

no worries - it has taken ages to do the above!

 

[J-2739]

The thing is though, someone of us young people are less likely to vote than others due to some of us believing that our vote wouldn't count.

Of course it will, but it's a psychological thing.

 

[Bromley boy]

I agree it is emotive. It is difficult to see good people treated very badly, especially those close to you, and remain detached.It is very difficult to subscribe to a suggestion that such unpleasantness was for the best. perhaps you have been lucky and not seen the real result of these policies.

Fair enough. Funnily enough I have seen a close relative affected by the cuts (genuinely disabled, not fat and lazy with perpetual “back trouble”). I’m not sure where I sit on it between “evil Tory cuts” and “there’s no money left” on this.

Yes - just meant it was a large family. No offense intended.



I have - i just don't agree with the interpretation and nor do I agree with "no platforming". From my experience the law would be more interested in your threats of violence rather than your religious views.

Ok. But hopefully we can agree that “safe spaces” are getting close to “book burnings” and are the antithesis of what a university should offer it’s students.


I do indeed - it is lucky we live in a liberal democracy where rights can be expressed and freely challenged. The trumping comes when you suggest violence to assert your views over others groups in our society with similar rights. Holding religious beliefs is not a problem. Suggesting violence to others because of them is.



There are. I know a couple. One of my best friends from school is a Methodist minster. If we are to live in a society where religious freedom is a right then the converse must be my right to critisice religion and reject it entirely.

Good for you. Would you tell your religious friends they are “brainwashed simpletons”?

The suggestion is preposterous. It reflect the kind of hyperbole loved by the Daily Mail. The reality is different. As I have indicated expression of religious belief is not the issue. The incitement of violence is. I woudl expect that to be the case regardless of the religion

I disagree - and I hate the Daily Mail. It’s usually rubbish so should be easy for you to argue against

But it is rubbish - the suggestion was that teachers are brainwashing children to express leftist views and so 16 year olds should not vote. I pointed out, several times, it is my view that views are more commonly developed in the home environment and are influenced more by your parents than your teachers. Again, it is also the type of silliness loved by the Daily Mail and lapped up by their readers.

I believe there is an inherent bias in the educational establishment towards left wing views - being a “Tory” is equated with being evil.

It was like that in my freshers year in 2001, and from recent articles things are now exponentially worse.

 

[Bromley boy]

no worries - it has taken ages to do the above!

You’re clearly better with your hands than I am.

My last reply to you is mostly contained in the message I’ve quoted.

 

[bb21]

None of you has the right to call someone an idiot on this forum, against published forum rules.

Now if you want to call someone an idiot outside the forum with good justification, then I am all for defending your right to do so.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

But it is rubbish - the suggestion was that teachers are brainwashing children to express leftist views and so 16 year olds should not vote. I pointed out, several times, it is my view that views are more commonly developed in the home environment and are influenced more by your parents than your teachers. Again, it is also the type of silliness loved by the Daily Mail and lapped up by their readers.

Except at no point was I saying that. What I was saying was that young minds are more impressionable and that with the amount of left-wing teachers they are very unlikely to ever hear the opposing side from a reasonable light. It's not a baseless claim either given that I provided an example through my experience of knowing someone in high school having a moderate stance before going into Uni, to which they now possess the left-wing views seen in typical Corbynistas who also supported Bernie Sanders. To be fair I would've preferred him to Trump and Hillary, but I certainly don't agree with some of the policies. I certainly don't agree with some of his voters who are absolutely determined to turn both America and Britain into the next examples of not real socialism.

 

[Bromley boy]

None of you has the right to call someone an idiot on this forum, against published forum rules.

Now if you want to call someone an idiot outside the forum with good justification, then I am all for defending your right to do so.

I’m not sure anyone has done that, unless I’ve missed it?

 

[Bromley boy]

Except at no point was I saying that. What I was saying was that young minds are more impressionable and that with the amount of left-wing teachers they are very unlikely to ever hear the opposing side from a reasonable light. It's not a baseless claim either given that I provided an example through my experience of knowing someone in high school having a moderate stance before going into Uni, to which they now possess the left-wing views seen in typical Corbynistas who also supported Bernie Sanders. To be fair I would've preferred him to Trump and Hillary, but I certainly don't agree with some of the policies. I certainly don't agree with some of his voters who are absolutely determined to turn both America and Britain into the next examples of not real socialism.

Most people go through phases of:

- not interested in politics at school
- left wing at uni because it’s “cool” and “the done thing”
- rabidly conservative after a few years of 40% tax and property ownership - conservatives have usually acquired something worth conserving

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Most people go through phases of:

- not interested in politics at school
- left wing at uni because it’s “cool” and “be done thing”
- rabidly conservative after a few years of 40% tax and property ownership - conservatives usually have something to conserve

There's a fine saying for such a scenario that I once heard from a comedian...

When you're young, you're socialist. When you're old, you're conservative. When you're dead, you're green.

 

[Bromley boy]

When you're young, you're socialist. When you're old, you're conservative. When you're dead, you're green.

So you go red-blue-green in a normal lifespan.

I’m not that old, but dangerously close to yellow at the moment! That’s not a nice thought!

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

So you go red-blue-green in a normal lifespan.

I’m not that old, but dangerously close to yellow at the moment! That’s not a nice thought!

In the words of Paul and Barry Chuckle: oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear...

 

[abn444]

The thing is though, someone of us young people are less likely to vote than others due to some of us believing that our vote wouldn't count.

Of course it will, but it's a psychological thing.

I think there are a lot of young people who are like sheep and will vote for Labour and Corbyn because he's "cool", everyone else is voting for him and as Up_Tilt_390 says, young people can be naive and impressionable. However, I think that Alan Sugar was spot on when he said that they "didn't know what they were voting for", and this is coming from a 22 year old. I'd agree with Up_Tilt_390 when he said that 16 is too young, I'd have said 18 was about right or even slightly too generous.

 

[DarloRich]

I believe there is an inherent bias in the educational establishment towards left wing views - being a “Tory” is equated with being evil.

It was like that in my freshers year in 2001, and from recent articles things are now exponentially worse.

I don't disagree but for many of us there is a truism in that view. If you haven't seen close up what Conservative policies do to normal people or suffered because of those polices it is hard to understand those views. I don't think Conservatives are bad people or evil. I think the biggest problem is that many of their representatives and voters ( not all of course) have never been in a position to have to exist on the £45 per week benefits they seem to despise. They don't have any point of reference with that or understand how that might make life choices difficult. They don't even understand how a premium rate phone line in those circumstances can be prohibitive. I have been on that £45 per week so know what it is like. I have had to make choices ( like gas or electric this week) that they never will. It makes it very difficult for them to understand how the application of policy impacts on those at the bottom.

I think the people who vote for them are misguided and miss the fact that they are very few steps from the gutter. Mortgages, good jobs, nice TV, fancy cars etc notwithstanding and that £45 per week. one day, very soon it could be them needing the help they have criticised. I was in that position and still ended up sitting in a house with no furniture trying to fight of the bailiffs and court summons. I would have been homes lees without housing benefit and hungry without JSA. I was able to sort my self out, get a new job, get straight and now own a house. That hasn't changed my views.

Except at no point was I saying that. What I was saying was that young minds are more impressionable and that with the amount of left-wing teachers they are very unlikely to ever hear the opposing side from a reasonable light. It's not a baseless claim either given that I provided an example through my experience of knowing someone in high school having a moderate stance before going into Uni, to which they now possess the left-wing views seen in typical Corbynistas who also supported Bernie Sanders. To be fair I would've preferred him to Trump and Hillary, but I certainly don't agree with some of the policies. I certainly don't agree with some of his voters who are absolutely determined to turn both America and Britain into the next examples of not real socialism.

I do take your point in relation to education. However I maintain that your home and family life is, in my view, more likely to influence your views at a formative stage. If you are in a family where the paper is the Daily Mail and the stance is kipper no lefty teacher is going to beat your Dad in having a strong effect on your political views.

Turning to your mate: I would say simply things happen to people as they move through life and those people change. Perhaps your mate did some volunteering at a food bank and saw people not much different to him without food or with a homeless outreach charity and has seen what the world is really like in those circumstances. Perhaps he believes that conflict is pointless and has become a pacifist. Perhaps he heard a powerful speaker and thought the views expressed were for him. Perhaps a relative was ill in hospital and the problems with the NHS were laid bare. Perhaps he got passed over for a job in favour of someone with the right handshake or was treated badly by some Tory boy in his bar job. Who knows. People change for all kinds of reasons.

PS: I am no fan of Corbyn btw!

 

[bb21]

It is debatable whether Alan Sugar is a good thing for this country - self-important, arrogant, attention-seeking, exploitory or high-achieving, successful, entrepreneurial.

For the record, I am all for giving 16 year olds votes. They are the ones that will have to live with the consequences the longest. The maturity argument doesn't stack up for me. Plenty of so-called "adults" are easily led and have no real intellect whatsoever, more so than teenagers in some cases.

 

[bb21]

I’m not sure anyone has done that, unless I’ve missed it?

Did you not? I may have misunderstood in that case.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I do take your point in relation to education. However I maintain that your home and family life is, in my view, more likely to influence your views at a formative stage. If you are in a family where the paper is the Daily Mail and the stance is kipper no lefty teacher is going to beat your Dad in having a strong effect on your political views.

Yes. I never doubted you for a minute on that front when it came to family influence. I still believe education can be a big factor nevertheless. Especially for those who have a better relationship with teachers than their parents.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Plenty of so-called "adults" are easily led and have no real intellect whatsoever, more so than teenagers in some cases.

*COUGH* Boris Johnson *COUGH*

 

[Bromley boy]

Did you not? I may have misunderstood in that case.

You most certainly did.

Where in any of my postings have I called anyone an “idiot?”.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Did you not? I may have misunderstood in that case.

You most certainly did.

Where in any of my postings have I called anyone an “idiot?”.

There has been a misunderstanding. It was in regards to another person using the term 'idiot' as a figure of speech earlier.

 

[Bromley boy]

I don't disagree but for many of us there is a truism in that view. If you haven't seen close up what Conservative policies do to normal people or suffered because of those polices it is hard to understand those views. I don't think Conservatives are bad people or evil. I think the biggest problem is that many of their representatives and voters ( not all of course) have never been in a position to have to exist on the £45 per week benefits they seem to despise. They don't have any point of reference with that or understand how that might make life choices difficult. They don't even understand how a premium rate phone line in those circumstances can be prohibitive. I have been on that £45 per week so know what it is like. I have had to make choices ( like gas or electric this week) that they never will. It makes it very difficult for them to understand how the application of policy impacts on those at the bottom.

I think the people who vote for them are misguided and miss the fact that they are very few steps from the gutter. Mortgages, good jobs, nice TV, fancy cars etc notwithstanding and that £45 per week. one day, very soon it could be them needing the help they have criticised. I was in that position and still ended up sitting in a house with no furniture trying to fight of the bailiffs and court summons. I would have been homes lees without housing benefit and hungry without JSA. I was able to sort my self out, get a new job, get straight and now own a house. That hasn't changed my views.

I also don’t disagree with you about some of the Tory policies. George Osbourne’s cynical raid on the benefits for the disabled is something we would agree on.

I think a lot of people who vote Tory have been unemployed as well. They’re also acutely aware that the wolf is never far from the door, especially in london, where £1000 per month, hard earned readies, barely services a one bed flat. Living in a house with no furniture would be a rare luxury down here! Many people in their 30s, on healthy incomes, are living in flat-shares and working very hard for it.

Hence why talk of council houses, ex Grenfell tower residents being housed in luxury hotels etc. sticks in the craw a little!

 

[bb21]

Yes, it was a combination of Posts 58 and 60. Not saying you called people an idiot, just reiterating the rules and for the benefit of those who, like me, occasionally prone to taking things a little too literally.

 

[DarloRich]

I also don’t disagree with you about some of the Tory policies. George Osbourne’s cynical raid on the benefits for the disabled is something we would agree on.

I think a lot of people who vote Tory have been unemployed as well. They’re also acutely aware that the wolf is never far from the door, especially in london, where £1000 per month, hard earned readies, barely services a one bed flat. Living in a house with no furniture would be a rare luxury down here! Many people in their 30s, on healthy incomes, are living in flat-shares and working very hard for it.

Hence why talk of council houses, ex Grenfell tower residents being housed in luxury hotels etc. sticks in the craw a little!

But a proper housing building programme of social, council and private housing would help everyone. That is what the right to buy ( which i support) money should have been funding all these years. The jealousy of others is what causes the problem and stops people challenging why £1000 per month is simply accepted.

 

[Bromley boy]

But a proper housing building programme of social, council and private housing would help everyone. That is what the right to buy ( which i support) money should have been funding all these years. The jealousy of others is what causes the problem and stops people challenging why £1000 per month is simply accepted.

To be fair, I don’t disagree with you there either!

Right to buy worked really well, apart from the small matter of forgetting the bit about building new homes to replace the ones that were sold.

 

[DarloRich]

To be fair, I don’t disagree with you there either!

Right to buy worked really well, apart from the small matter of forgetting the bit about building new homes to replace the ones that were sold.

Typical Tories - half job Harry's

What really annoys me is that right to buy should have been (and still be) the route into home ownership for many in this country

 

[Bletchleyite]

But a proper housing building programme of social, council and private housing would help everyone. That is what the right to buy ( which i support) money should have been funding all these years. The jealousy of others is what causes the problem and stops people challenging why £1000 per month is simply accepted.

I don't mind right to buy provided the price paid is adequate to build another house or purchase one on the open market *and* that house does get built or purchased. Which probably means very near market rate rather than a subsidy.

While it causes its own problems (making unaffordable houses affordable and thus perpetuating high prices) shared ownership is probably better than a direct subsidy on right to buy.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Perhaps we should consider allowing 12 year old children to vote. At that age they'll be able to understand what they need to do to vote and I don't recall anyone suggesting that voters need to make an informed decision when casting their vote.