Votes for 16

[Bromley boy]

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

The trouble is, once you have climbed the greasy ladder to property ownership in the UK, especially anywhere near London, you want to pull it up after you! The system incentivises you to do so...

Putting my own interests aside, I can agree it’s a thoroughly broken system.

 

[Bromley boy]

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.

Perhaps we should all pop over to Richmond and ruminate on these heady matters, over cigars and single malt .

 

[algytaylor]

I think we should bar over 65s from voting. They (mostly) no longer contribute tax or labour to the system, indeed through overly generous pensions they cost us working folk money. Why should they get a say in a system that they contribute nothing to, are only interested in how much they can sponge out of the state, and don't have to live with the long term consequences of their choices as they'll be food for the worms in the near future.

 

[Railops]

I think we should bar over 65s from voting. They (mostly) no longer contribute tax or labour to the system, indeed through overly generous pensions they cost us working folk money. Why should they get a say in a system that they contribute nothing to, are only interested in how much they can sponge out of the state, and don't have to live with the long term consequences of their choices as they'll be food for the worms in the near future.

What a horrible nasty post.

 

[DarloRich]

What a horrible nasty post.

lets consider this: Why should the elderly have a vote when 16 year old's don't? It wouldn't be that the elderly are more likely to vote for the Tories and Brexit would it?

EDIT: For the avoidance of doubt I don't agree with the quoted poster! I am interested in views as it seems 16 year olds cant be trusted to vote for anyone other than Labour. The elderly are more likely to vote Tory. Why is that stance ok?

 

[bb21]

I think we should bar over 65s from voting. They (mostly) no longer contribute tax or labour to the system, indeed through overly generous pensions they cost us working folk money. Why should they get a say in a system that they contribute nothing to, are only interested in how much they can sponge out of the state, and don't have to live with the long term consequences of their choices as they'll be food for the worms in the near future.

Shall we just euthanise them then?

I don't quite believe my eyes.

 

[PeterC]

At what point does somebody's "contribution" to the system cease? If I finish one contract the week before an election and start another the week after should I be denied a vote because I wasn't "contributing" as I wasn't earning any taxable income for that fortnight?

 

[Senex]

I think we should bar over 65s from voting. They (mostly) no longer contribute tax or labour to the system, indeed through overly generous pensions they cost us working folk money. Why should they get a say in a system that they contribute nothing to, are only interested in how much they can sponge out of the state, and don't have to live with the long term consequences of their choices as they'll be food for the worms in the near future.

I think you'll find a good many of us over-65s still pay considerable amounts of income tax, in addition to payments of other forms of tax like VAT or coucil tax and so on. Indeed, there must be many of us who pay more in come tax than a good many of the under-65s you are so keen to speak for. Overly generous pensions? Well, the British state scheme is known for being one of the worst, and as for the private schemes, we and our e mployers contributed throughout our working lives. In terms of contribution, a good many very worthwhile voluntary organisations of all sorts function only because of the time and effort freely given by the over-65s. It's certainly true that we'll be food for the worms sooner than most of you under-65s, but until then we do still have to live with the consequences of our choices (or of other, younger, people's ridiculous choices or filaures to choose).
We have a system of universal suffrage. That means we have to put up with the old and the young, the wise and the foolish, the well-informed and the totally clueless all having votes, and each vote counting the same. If you want to bar the over-65s, shall we also have a debate about barring all with an IQ of less than 100, or everyone paying no income tax? That would surely be equally ridiculous.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I think we should bar over 65s from voting. They (mostly) no longer contribute tax or labour to the system, indeed through overly generous pensions they cost us working folk money. Why should they get a say in a system that they contribute nothing to, are only interested in how much they can sponge out of the state, and don't have to live with the long term consequences of their choices as they'll be food for the worms in the near future.

Over 65s have contributed to the system their whole life for the most part, and they still pay tax. By the logic of no contribution, it works for the 16 year olds who’ve just got out of school and haven’t contributed to the system at all and might actually just want to squeeze the system themselves through large socialist policies for example. The key note as to why it’s not a valid reason is that we are our individuals. We vote as a group but contribute as ourselves.

I’ve been getting sickness payments the past few years and haven’t been able to do much work myself. So maybe I shouldn’t vote? In that scenario, I am at the mercy of the marginal voters to whom I would be hoping weren’t willing to screw me over, even though they have no clue who I am. Same for pensioners. Even if they don’t seem to contribute, some of them have, and they still get their pensions affected.

As for living with the consequences of their actions? More of a hit and miss argument there, but some of the women in my family tree have lived into their 90s. Twenty five years is five elections under the normal pattern, but that’s assuming it goes the normal pattern. Despite that silly Fixed-Term Parliament Act we really don’t have fixed terms.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Perhaps we should all pop over to Richmond and ruminate on these heady matters, over cigars and single malt .

That sounds like an excellent idea The only problem with this is that I don't smoke and I haven't touched whiskey since my 21st birthday (and I'm now 51). The calendar is full up between now and new year but perhaps we can meet up in early 2018

 

[algytaylor]

lets consider this: Why should the elderly have a vote when 16 year old's don't? It wouldn't be that the elderly are more likely to vote for the Tories and Brexit would it?

EDIT: For the avoidance of doubt I don't agree with the quoted poster! I am interested in views as it seems 16 year olds cant be trusted to vote for anyone other than Labour. The elderly are more likely to vote Tory. Why is that stance ok?

Just to make it clear, I don't agree with the quoted poster (me) either. I was in a bit of a grumpy mood this morning, but the point was more that the arguments against giving 16 year olds the vote are no less ridiculous than those about barring over 65s from voting.

So what if someone doesn't have "experience"? Who exactly has experience on foreign affairs? Yet we all (over 18s, anyway) voted one way or another in the Brexit vote. Many of us were very passionate either for staying in the EU or against it. But how many know the first sodding thing about fisheries policy, or *actually* about any significant amount of regulations, or ...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So what if someone doesn't have "experience"? Who exactly has experience on foreign affairs? Yet we all (over 18s, anyway) voted one way or another in the Brexit vote. Many of us were very passionate either for staying in the EU or against it. But how many know the first sodding thing about fisheries policy, or *actually* about any significant amount of regulations, or ...

That is all very true. But I'm not sure it gives much of an argument for lowering the voting age. The problem is, any voting age is to some extent arbitrary. If the aim is to ensure that people who vote have sufficient knowledge/experience to make a good judgement, then any age is going to fail - because there will be many people above the age who have no knowledge of politics, and - unless the age is set ridiculously low - there will be some people below the voting age who actually do know quite a bit about politics/economics/etc. So what's special about 16? Why make it 16, and not, say 17, or 15 or 14 or whatever? Of course, the current age of 18 is also rather arbitrary, but it's what we have and it seems to work reasonably well. Is there really a case for going to all the trouble to change it to another age that is also basically arbitrary?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That sounds like an excellent idea The only problem with this is that I don't smoke and I haven't touched whiskey since my 21st birthday (and I'm now 51). The calendar is full up between now and new year but perhaps we can meet up in early 2018

Actually, although I realise your and BromleyBoy's posts were made in jest, that does make me think meetups are often organised by railforums - usually meals or fares workshops. I wonder if there'd be enough interest for a meet-up specifically for people who hang about in the politics discussions?

 

[Busaholic]

I couldn't vote in the 1966 General Election despite being 18, as 21 was the minimum age then. I'll go along with 16 becoming the new 18, though with one proviso, being that voting should be in person except in special circumstances.

(Originally typed that I couldn't vote in the 1066 General Election, which would have confirmed some contributors' views about me, I guess)

 

[fowler9]

The OP doesn't want people under the age of 16 to have the vote because they think someone under 18 might vote a way they don't like. If you are old enough to work you are old enough to vote. Also 16 year olds can decide to join the army, they can't be on the front line but having chose to join at the age of 16 they are going to find it difficult to leave before they are old enough to go and kill or get killed. If you aren't old enough to decide who governs the country for the next five years how are you old enough to decide that you want to go and die for it in two years time.

 

[Barn]

I have to say that I find the current calls for "Votes at 16" to be completely at odd with the direction society has been going over the last few decades.

Rather than 16 being recognised as the start of maturity, the age at which we recognise true adulthood has been steadily rising. This is partly to do with the rise in university education, partly to do with house prices, and partly to do with safeguarding.

Fifty years ago, a 16-year-old might well have quit education, made what might be their lifetime career choice, found or be engaged to their future spouse and be renting a property.

Now, in everything but this voting discussion, we see a 16 year old as a child:

• Yes, a 16-year-old can technically get married (with consent), but actually the average age of first marriage is significantly above this. The average age of first marriage in the UK is now over 30. To many people, a wedding of 20-year-olds would seem strange, and one between 16-year-olds would seem almost abusive.
• Yes, a 16-year-old might pay income tax, but actually this is now very rare, as young people must now remain in education (formal or vocational).
• Yes, a 16-year-old is allowed to have sex, but actually this is something that adult society finds distasteful and any adult showing sexual interest in a 16 year old would be looked at with some concern.

We have in recent years (for good reason) banned 16 and 17 year olds from buying tobacco. We have banned indecent images of 16 and 17 year olds (making some early editions of The Sun now illegal). We make excuses for people like Jared O'Mara, saying we should expect immaturity from people in their early 20s.

Most 16-year-olds today live lives that are very similar to those that they lived when they were 13, 14 and 15. Their lives bear far more resemblance to their childhood existence than they do to their future adult existence. They are many years away from sustaining themselves financially, let alone raising their own children.

I don't personally think all of the above is healthy. In particular, I share the views above about the need for university students to be exposed to uncensored adult discussions and concepts.

But, with the way society is currently configured, it is the rights you gain at 16 that seem to be the anachronisms, rather than the need to wait until 18 to vote.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, a 16 year old is allowed to have sex, but actually this is something that adult society finds distasteful and any adult showing sexual interest in a 16 year old would be looked at with some concern.

I suspect any adult in their 40s doing so with an 18 or even 20 year old would be looked at similarly.

However I don't believe anyone has any concern about a 16 year old having sex with another 16 year old, so I'm not clear that your point is relevant here.

I do however see your wider point that the move is to standardise adult rights and responsibilities all at 18.

 

[Barn]

I suspect any adult in their 40s doing so with an 18 or even 20 year old would be looked at similarly.

However I don't believe anyone has any concern about a 16 year old having sex with another 16 year old, so I'm not clear that your point is relevant here.

The relationship between adult and child is frowned upon (to put it mildly) because the younger party is very much not an adult. It highlights the very real differences between a true adult and a 16-year-old. Society, if not the law, sees 16-year-olds as children to be protected rather than adults capable of making an adult decision.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

The OP doesn't want people under the age of 16 to have the vote because they think someone under 18 might vote a way they don't like. If you are old enough to work you are old enough to vote. Also 16 year olds can decide to join the army, they can't be on the front line but having chose to join at the age of 16 they are going to find it difficult to leave before they are old enough to go and kill or get killed. If you aren't old enough to decide who governs the country for the next five years how are you old enough to decide that you want to go and die for it in two years time.

The first point is a complete strawman argument.

I’ve been critical of some of the age limits such as being allowed to serve at 16 but not vote as well as pay tax but not vote. A good amount of people have either nothing to say about that, not noticed then, or conveniently chosen to ignore them parts.

The legal adult age in the UK is 18, so allowing them to vote is allowing children to vote, allowing them to serve is allowing children to go to war, allowing them to have sex and is allowing children to potentially have a family before they’ve even finished school. It should be one way or the other!

 

[fowler9]

The first point is a complete strawman argument.

I’ve been critical of some of the age limits such as being allowed to serve at 16 but not vote as well as pay tax but not vote. A good amount of people have either nothing to say about that, not noticed then, or conveniently chosen to ignore them parts.

The legal adult age in the UK is 18, so allowing them to vote is allowing children to vote, allowing them to serve is allowing children to go to war, allowing them to have sex and is allowing children to potentially have a family before they’ve even finished school. It should be one way or the other!

I agree it should be one way or the other. At the minute though at 16 you can serve in the forces, have sex or get a job but can't vote, look at porn, smoke or buy a pint. My first point wasn't a strawman argument by the way. You clearly don't want sixteen year olds to be able to vote because you feel they are more likely to be left wing. You also mention the higher number of people staying on in school meaning they have no life experience. Well loads stay in education until they are 21, why not make the voting age higher?

 

[Minilad]

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.

This reminds me of an anecdote I heard about an old school footballer from back in the day.
He was on the receiving end of a bad refereeing decision and asked the referee what he would do if he called the ref a ****. "I would send you off" replied the ref. "So what about if I thought you were a ****" asked the player. "well I can't do anything about you thinking something" said the ref. "OK" said the player "I think you're a ****"

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Well loads stay in education until they are 21, why not make the voting age higher?

One can make an argument about increasing the age to 21. I said st the start that I thought 18 was being generous.

 

[bb21]

I couldn't vote in the 1966 General Election despite being 18, as 21 was the minimum age then. I'll go along with 16 becoming the new 18, though with one proviso, being that voting should be in person except in special circumstances.

(Originally typed that I couldn't vote in the 1066 General Election, which would have confirmed some contributors' views about me, I guess)

I would be very impressed if you were eligible to vote in the 1066 General Election. You must tell me your secrets to an eternal life.

 

[Bletchleyite]

FWIW, I'm not sure concentrating everything on 18 is necessarily a good thing. When I was growing up adulthood was a continuum, you started feeling like an adult from about 15-16 but weren't really properly one until you moved out to go to uni/live with friends or whatever, and like with a driving test once you're an adult then the learning really starts.

Nowadays, it's 17 and 364 days = kid, 18 = adult - and that's a lot to chuck onto somebody in one go.

I would however say it's probably the case that the things that are allowed at 16, 17 and 18 are quite possibly the wrong way round.

 

[fowler9]

FWIW, I'm not sure concentrating everything on 18 is necessarily a good thing. When I was growing up adulthood was a continuum, you started feeling like an adult from about 15-16 but weren't really properly one until you moved out to go to uni/live with friends or whatever, and like with a driving test once you're an adult then the learning really starts.

Nowadays, it's 17 and 364 days = kid, 18 = adult - and that's a lot to chuck onto somebody in one go.

I would however say it's probably the case that the things that are allowed at 16, 17 and 18 are quite possibly the wrong way round.

Yeah, it is a bit mixed up. Being allowed to join the forces and not being allowed to look at porn is odd. Ha ha.

 

[Jonny]

The 16-17 age group is particularly prone to manipulation by their teachers. Unfortunately, they have a bias towards a certain party that uses a lot of red in its logo and whose name begins with the letter L.

 

[fowler9]

The 16-17 age group is particularly prone to manipulation by their teachers. Unfortunately, they have a bias towards a certain party that uses a lot of red in its logo and whose name begins with the letter L.

Perhaps people over a certain age should also be banned from voting as they start to loose some of their cognitive abilities and are more easily influenced by the Tories?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 16-17 age group is particularly prone to manipulation by their teachers. Unfortunately, they have a bias towards a certain party that uses a lot of red in its logo and whose name begins with the letter L.

You insult the intelligence of many 16-18 year olds. I'm involved in Explorer Scouting and know quite a few in that age range who would consider themselves Conservatives.

 

[Essan]

I would be very impressed if you were eligible to vote in the 1066 General Election. You must tell me your secrets to an eternal life.

I tried to vote in the 1066 elections, but as I wasn't living in Hastings at the time, they wouldn't give a ballot paper

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

You insult the intelligence of many 16-18 year olds. I'm involved in Explorer Scouting and know quite a few in that age range who would consider themselves Conservatives.

Lots of 16-18 year olds nowadays are early Generation X. It's said that these may be the most conservative generation since the Baby Boomers, though I'd say this is disputable and could very well be wrong. At present the Millennial generation is more liberal, and being the future parents I'd say there will be a decent split at best. As DarloRich himself has stated, family influence is a big factor in some of your political beliefs. But then again, my family is full of leftists and rightists, so it'll probably be more to who they look up to that influences them. Luckily for me I won't need to worry about that because I don't plan nor wish to have children.