Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Duty281 wrote:Sunak speaks for a grand total of 84 seconds and then scuttles away to get his orders.

Crackpot.

PR will not improve the current dire political class.

navyblueshorts wrote:Random thought: re. the recent frothing here and elsewhere over alleged voter disenfranchisement and voter ID as a disgusting Tory political scheme to favour themselves, I wonder what people think of Starmer's proposal to allow 16/17-year olds the vote, as well as settled EU migrants, in GEs if Labour win the next one, especially as both groups suggested to be significantly more Labour-leaning?

On another note, I see Starmer has confirmed that voting system reform is not on his agenda if Labour get in next year. That's one less vote his party will be receiving in that election then...

Seems to be a move to benefit Labour, so I suspect that's why they're doing it. I'm personally not in favour of giving children the vote, or giving non-British citizens the vote.

Many people who criticised the Tories for supposedly rigging the election by introducing measures that are sensible and commonplace around much of Europe, even though it seems Labour benefited more from the changes than the Tories in the local elections, wouldn't have minded if Labour had been in a position to do likewise and/or thought that Labour would benefit from it, so I wouldn't expect much angst about this change.

With regards to voting reform, I believe Starmer has said he wants to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an elected second chamber. Personally, I'd just rather have one chamber than another load of elected politicians. But will he even do that? Starmer not wanting PR is politically very sensible for him and his party, so I'm not surprised.

If Starmer does become PM it's going to be an uninspiring five years. I imagine that when he became leader of the Labour Party he didn't realistically think he would become PM, at least not in 2024, as Labour had just suffered their worst defeat for 80 years and Johnson was relatively popular; but the Tory collapse has thrust him into an unlikely position, so is it any wonder he seems ill-prepared for the role?

No name Bertie wrote:PR will not improve the current dire political class.

Maybe not, but that's not a reason to gloss over the obvious need for a change in the FPTP system we currently have to endure. The standard of our politicians has nothing to do w/ whether FPTP is a mature, fit-for-the-21st-century electoral system, or not.

navyblueshorts wrote:... obvious need for a change in the FPTP system we currently have to endure .... whether FPTP is a mature, fit-for-the-21st-century electoral system, or not.

Arguments not assertions with underlying gaslighting is a better way to progress discussion.  I have already suggested my preference for reform.  PR has issues: impossibility of voting out particular individuals from parliament, greater centralized power of the party over party candidates, greater power to smaller parties (tail wagging dog effect), horse trading between parties, cartel like alliances, weak governments.

ps: I was in favor of the "Alternative Vote" over "FPTP" but the majority was against it.  I wasn't particularly convinced that the media coverage of it was impartial.

pps: given as someone else has mentioned PR is never in actuality going to be offered to the public because of the "two party system", I hope we can all be civil to each other over any discussion over it.  Clearly it seems this can be an emotive issue.

General Question regarding PR: what happens to the "non-party affiliated" independent candidate?

No name Bertie wrote:General Question regarding PR:  what happens to the "non-party affiliated" independent candidate?

Would depend slightly on the rules, but essentially just another party with all same rules applying.

No name Bertie wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:... obvious need for a change in the FPTP system we currently have to endure .... whether FPTP is a mature, fit-for-the-21st-century electoral system, or not.

Arguments not assertions with underlying gaslighting is a better way to progress discussion.  I have already suggested my preference for reform.  PR has issues: impossibility of voting out particular individuals from parliament, greater centralized power of the party over party candidates, greater power to smaller parties (tail wagging dog effect), horse trading between parties, cartel like alliances, weak governments.

ps: I was in favor of the "Alternative Vote" over "FPTP" but the majority was against it.  I wasn't particularly convinced that the media coverage of it was impartial.

pps: given as someone else has mentioned PR is never in actuality going to be offered to the public because of the "two party system", I hope we can all be civil to each other over any discussion over it.  Clearly it seems this can be an emotive issue.

Being insulting is a better approach, then? Good grief.

navyblueshorts wrote:Random thought: re. the recent frothing here and elsewhere over alleged voter disenfranchisement and voter ID as a disgusting Tory political scheme to favour themselves, I wonder what people think of Starmer's proposal to allow 16/17-year olds the vote, as well as settled EU migrants, in GEs if Labour win the next one, especially as both groups suggested to be significantly more Labour-leaning?

On another note, I see Starmer has confirmed that voting system reform is not on his agenda if Labour get in next year. That's one less vote his party will be receiving in that election then...

Works for me, if you contribute to the pot you should get a say. You could easily argue that Labour are only doing it to benefit themselves (and that argument isnt without merit) but I would support this measure no matter who was introducing it.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Random thought: re. the recent frothing here and elsewhere over alleged voter disenfranchisement and voter ID as a disgusting Tory political scheme to favour themselves, I wonder what people think of Starmer's proposal to allow 16/17-year olds the vote, as well as settled EU migrants, in GEs if Labour win the next one, especially as both groups suggested to be significantly more Labour-leaning?

On another note, I see Starmer has confirmed that voting system reform is not on his agenda if Labour get in next year. That's one less vote his party will be receiving in that election then...

Seems to be a move to benefit Labour, so I suspect that's why they're doing it. I'm personally not in favour of giving children the vote, or giving non-British citizens the vote.

Many people who criticised the Tories for supposedly rigging the election by introducing measures that are sensible and commonplace around much of Europe, even though it seems Labour benefited more from the changes than the Tories in the local elections, wouldn't have minded if Labour had been in a position to do likewise and/or thought that Labour would benefit from it, so I wouldn't expect much angst about this change.

With regards to voting reform, I believe Starmer has said he wants to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an elected second chamber. Personally, I'd just rather have one chamber than another load of elected politicians. But will he even do that? Starmer not wanting PR is politically very sensible for him and his party, so I'm not surprised.

If Starmer does become PM it's going to be an uninspiring five years. I imagine that when he became leader of the Labour Party he didn't realistically think he would become PM, at least not in 2024, as Labour had just suffered their worst defeat for 80 years and Johnson was relatively popular; but the Tory collapse has thrust him into an unlikely position, so is it any wonder he seems ill-prepared for the role?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65599380

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Random thought: re. the recent frothing here and elsewhere over alleged voter disenfranchisement and voter ID as a disgusting Tory political scheme to favour themselves, I wonder what people think of Starmer's proposal to allow 16/17-year olds the vote, as well as settled EU migrants, in GEs if Labour win the next one, especially as both groups suggested to be significantly more Labour-leaning?

On another note, I see Starmer has confirmed that voting system reform is not on his agenda if Labour get in next year. That's one less vote his party will be receiving in that election then...

Seems to be a move to benefit Labour, so I suspect that's why they're doing it. I'm personally not in favour of giving children the vote, or giving non-British citizens the vote.

Many people who criticised the Tories for supposedly rigging the election by introducing measures that are sensible and commonplace around much of Europe, even though it seems Labour benefited more from the changes than the Tories in the local elections, wouldn't have minded if Labour had been in a position to do likewise and/or thought that Labour would benefit from it, so I wouldn't expect much angst about this change.

With regards to voting reform, I believe Starmer has said he wants to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an elected second chamber. Personally, I'd just rather have one chamber than another load of elected politicians. But will he even do that? Starmer not wanting PR is politically very sensible for him and his party, so I'm not surprised.

If Starmer does become PM it's going to be an uninspiring five years. I imagine that when he became leader of the Labour Party he didn't realistically think he would become PM, at least not in 2024, as Labour had just suffered their worst defeat for 80 years and Johnson was relatively popular; but the Tory collapse has thrust him into an unlikely position, so is it any wonder he seems ill-prepared for the role?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65599380

What is the purpose of this?

F*cked if I know!

May I remind you of one of the numerous forum rules in operation?

• Posts that contain only a link and no description are considered spam. You must give a brief summary or description of the website linked.

You'll have to go inside for ten years as a violation of this sacred rule.

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Random thought: re. the recent frothing here and elsewhere over alleged voter disenfranchisement and voter ID as a disgusting Tory political scheme to favour themselves, I wonder what people think of Starmer's proposal to allow 16/17-year olds the vote, as well as settled EU migrants, in GEs if Labour win the next one, especially as both groups suggested to be significantly more Labour-leaning?

On another note, I see Starmer has confirmed that voting system reform is not on his agenda if Labour get in next year. That's one less vote his party will be receiving in that election then...

Works for me, if you contribute to the pot you should get a say.  You could easily argue that Labour are only doing it to benefit themselves (and that argument isnt without merit) but I would support this measure no matter who was introducing it.

It's an interesting one, this. Where do you draw the line? Settled non-nationals already have a say to some extent in that they can, and many no doubt did, vote in the recent local elections. Wouldn't there be some expectation that someone should apply for nationality if they can influence whom the Government of the country would be?
Re. 16/17-year old Brits, a slightly grey area, but are they contributing to the pot, in the main? Complicated by differences between England and the devolved areas of the UK I guess.

I'm pretty blasé re. the 16/17-year old thing; possibly good to try to engage that age group in voting. Not so convinced on the non-nationals though...

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Random thought: re. the recent frothing here and elsewhere over alleged voter disenfranchisement and voter ID as a disgusting Tory political scheme to favour themselves, I wonder what people think of Starmer's proposal to allow 16/17-year olds the vote, as well as settled EU migrants, in GEs if Labour win the next one, especially as both groups suggested to be significantly more Labour-leaning?

On another note, I see Starmer has confirmed that voting system reform is not on his agenda if Labour get in next year. That's one less vote his party will be receiving in that election then...

Works for me, if you contribute to the pot you should get a say.  You could easily argue that Labour are only doing it to benefit themselves (and that argument isnt without merit) but I would support this measure no matter who was introducing it.

It's an interesting one, this. Where do you draw the line? Settled non-nationals already have a say to some extent in that they can, and many no doubt did, vote in the recent local elections. Wouldn't there be some expectation that someone should apply for nationality if they can influence whom the Government of the country would be?
Re. 16/17-year old Brits, a slightly grey area, but are they contributing to the pot, in the main? Complicated by differences between England and the devolved areas of the UK I guess.

I'm pretty blasé re. the 16/17-year old thing; possibly good to try to engage that age group in voting. Not so convinced on the non-nationals though...

I was always under the impression settled non-nationals could vote here anyway, unless EU nationals lost that right after Brexit.

I dont see any reason to not give 16/17 year olds the vote. You could argue they're not mature enough/dont know what they're doing but that can apply to a lot of adults who can vote. I live in Scotland and I know for a fact theres tens of thousands of people who vote based on what football team they support. And its not like they'd be forced to vote, it would mostly be those who are interested, again like adults.

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Random thought: re. the recent frothing here and elsewhere over alleged voter disenfranchisement and voter ID as a disgusting Tory political scheme to favour themselves, I wonder what people think of Starmer's proposal to allow 16/17-year olds the vote, as well as settled EU migrants, in GEs if Labour win the next one, especially as both groups suggested to be significantly more Labour-leaning?

On another note, I see Starmer has confirmed that voting system reform is not on his agenda if Labour get in next year. That's one less vote his party will be receiving in that election then...

Works for me, if you contribute to the pot you should get a say.  You could easily argue that Labour are only doing it to benefit themselves (and that argument isnt without merit) but I would support this measure no matter who was introducing it.

It's an interesting one, this. Where do you draw the line? Settled non-nationals already have a say to some extent in that they can, and many no doubt did, vote in the recent local elections. Wouldn't there be some expectation that someone should apply for nationality if they can influence whom the Government of the country would be?
Re. 16/17-year old Brits, a slightly grey area, but are they contributing to the pot, in the main? Complicated by differences between England and the devolved areas of the UK I guess.

I'm pretty blasé re. the 16/17-year old thing; possibly good to try to engage that age group in voting. Not so convinced on the non-nationals though...

I was always under the impression settled non-nationals could vote here anyway, unless EU nationals lost that right after Brexit.

I dont see any reason to not give 16/17 year olds the vote.  You could argue they're not mature enough/dont know what they're doing but that can apply to a lot of adults who can vote.  I live in Scotland and I know for a fact theres tens of thousands of people who vote based on what football team they support.  And its not like they'd be forced to vote, it would mostly be those who are interested, again like adults.

How does that work?

Celtic- SNP
Rangers- Any unionist party

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Random thought: re. the recent frothing here and elsewhere over alleged voter disenfranchisement and voter ID as a disgusting Tory political scheme to favour themselves, I wonder what people think of Starmer's proposal to allow 16/17-year olds the vote, as well as settled EU migrants, in GEs if Labour win the next one, especially as both groups suggested to be significantly more Labour-leaning?

On another note, I see Starmer has confirmed that voting system reform is not on his agenda if Labour get in next year. That's one less vote his party will be receiving in that election then...

Works for me, if you contribute to the pot you should get a say.  You could easily argue that Labour are only doing it to benefit themselves (and that argument isnt without merit) but I would support this measure no matter who was introducing it.

What if you don't contribute to the pot? No vote for you? You know what, I think that's a great idea. If you are on benefits of any kind (maybe bar a pension), you lose your vote. Only contributors to the pot are allowed to have a say on how that pot is spent.

Soul Requiem wrote:Celtic- SNP
Rangers- Any unionist party

Basically. Not all Celtic fans support the SNP, but Rangers fans are more likely to support the Tories - mostly because they were the largest anti-independence party around referendum time.

the-goon2 wrote:

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Random thought: re. the recent frothing here and elsewhere over alleged voter disenfranchisement and voter ID as a disgusting Tory political scheme to favour themselves, I wonder what people think of Starmer's proposal to allow 16/17-year olds the vote, as well as settled EU migrants, in GEs if Labour win the next one, especially as both groups suggested to be significantly more Labour-leaning?

On another note, I see Starmer has confirmed that voting system reform is not on his agenda if Labour get in next year. That's one less vote his party will be receiving in that election then...

Works for me, if you contribute to the pot you should get a say.  You could easily argue that Labour are only doing it to benefit themselves (and that argument isnt without merit) but I would support this measure no matter who was introducing it.

What if you don't contribute to the pot? No vote for you? You know what, I think that's a great idea. If you are on benefits of any kind (maybe bar a pension), you lose your vote. Only contributors to the pot are allowed to have a say on how that pot is spent.

You dont get benefits if you havent paid enough National Insurance. So even people on benefits have contributed to the pot at one point.

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Random thought: re. the recent frothing here and elsewhere over alleged voter disenfranchisement and voter ID as a disgusting Tory political scheme to favour themselves, I wonder what people think of Starmer's proposal to allow 16/17-year olds the vote, as well as settled EU migrants, in GEs if Labour win the next one, especially as both groups suggested to be significantly more Labour-leaning?

On another note, I see Starmer has confirmed that voting system reform is not on his agenda if Labour get in next year. That's one less vote his party will be receiving in that election then...

Works for me, if you contribute to the pot you should get a say.  You could easily argue that Labour are only doing it to benefit themselves (and that argument isnt without merit) but I would support this measure no matter who was introducing it.

What about People who are offshore and don't contribute what they should (like half the Govt)......Should they get a say ????.....Maybe if there is large unemployment in your area having no say won't be your fault ???......It's a garbage idea.....

No I want more people voting not less.....Work should pay......Thresholds should be raised so lower paid workers don't start paying until they reach a higher grade,

Obviously Labour know Students are more left wing which is why they want 16+ votes.......I don't see any reason why not !!!..

But back on point......If you are the useless Green Party (I don't even know who the leader is).....What an opportunity....Labour have ruled cancelling Tuition fees out....No one will trust the Lib Dems again on the issue.......So open goal for the Green Party......After all 16+17 year olds are on the preamble to University....

Samo wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Celtic- SNP
Rangers- Any unionist party

Basically.  Not all Celtic fans support the SNP, but Rangers fans are more likely to support the Tories - mostly because they were the largest anti-independence party around referendum time.

I see. I'm sure there are people voting for all types of silly reasons, but I don't see it as an argument to lower the voting age to 16.

Samo wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Random thought: re. the recent frothing here and elsewhere over alleged voter disenfranchisement and voter ID as a disgusting Tory political scheme to favour themselves, I wonder what people think of Starmer's proposal to allow 16/17-year olds the vote, as well as settled EU migrants, in GEs if Labour win the next one, especially as both groups suggested to be significantly more Labour-leaning?

On another note, I see Starmer has confirmed that voting system reform is not on his agenda if Labour get in next year. That's one less vote his party will be receiving in that election then...

Works for me, if you contribute to the pot you should get a say.  You could easily argue that Labour are only doing it to benefit themselves (and that argument isnt without merit) but I would support this measure no matter who was introducing it.

What if you don't contribute to the pot? No vote for you? You know what, I think that's a great idea. If you are on benefits of any kind (maybe bar a pension), you lose your vote. Only contributors to the pot are allowed to have a say on how that pot is spent.

You dont get benefits if you havent paid enough National Insurance.  So even people on benefits have contributed to the pot at one point.

Universal Credit is non-contributory and means tested, so people can get that without previously having paid any NI.

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Celtic- SNP
Rangers- Any unionist party

Basically.  Not all Celtic fans support the SNP, but Rangers fans are more likely to support the Tories - mostly because they were the largest anti-independence party around referendum time.

I see. I'm sure there are people voting for all types of silly reasons, but I don't see it as an argument to lower the voting age to 16.

Its not so much an argument for or against it, its more to counter the point that “kids dont know what they’re doing” when theres plenty evidence to suggest a lot of adults dont either, so why not let them get a vote?

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Random thought: re. the recent frothing here and elsewhere over alleged voter disenfranchisement and voter ID as a disgusting Tory political scheme to favour themselves, I wonder what people think of Starmer's proposal to allow 16/17-year olds the vote, as well as settled EU migrants, in GEs if Labour win the next one, especially as both groups suggested to be significantly more Labour-leaning?

On another note, I see Starmer has confirmed that voting system reform is not on his agenda if Labour get in next year. That's one less vote his party will be receiving in that election then...

Works for me, if you contribute to the pot you should get a say.  You could easily argue that Labour are only doing it to benefit themselves (and that argument isnt without merit) but I would support this measure no matter who was introducing it.

What if you don't contribute to the pot? No vote for you? You know what, I think that's a great idea. If you are on benefits of any kind (maybe bar a pension), you lose your vote. Only contributors to the pot are allowed to have a say on how that pot is spent.

You dont get benefits if you havent paid enough National Insurance.  So even people on benefits have contributed to the pot at one point.

Universal Credit is non-contributory and means tested, so people can get that without previously having paid any NI.

Im no expert on the benefits system because thankfully I’ve never had to use it, but I think I can clear up any confusion with a slight rewording of my original point. If you can or have contributed to the pot you should get a say.

Local elections 2023: Voter ID backfired on Tories, says Rees-Mogg https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65599380

Atleast he’s finally being honest about something.

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Random thought: re. the recent frothing here and elsewhere over alleged voter disenfranchisement and voter ID as a disgusting Tory political scheme to favour themselves, I wonder what people think of Starmer's proposal to allow 16/17-year olds the vote, as well as settled EU migrants, in GEs if Labour win the next one, especially as both groups suggested to be significantly more Labour-leaning?

On another note, I see Starmer has confirmed that voting system reform is not on his agenda if Labour get in next year. That's one less vote his party will be receiving in that election then...

Works for me, if you contribute to the pot you should get a say.  You could easily argue that Labour are only doing it to benefit themselves (and that argument isnt without merit) but I would support this measure no matter who was introducing it.

What if you don't contribute to the pot? No vote for you? You know what, I think that's a great idea. If you are on benefits of any kind (maybe bar a pension), you lose your vote. Only contributors to the pot are allowed to have a say on how that pot is spent.

You dont get benefits if you havent paid enough National Insurance.  So even people on benefits have contributed to the pot at one point.

Universal Credit is non-contributory and means tested, so people can get that without previously having paid any NI.

Im no expert on the benefits system because thankfully I’ve never had to use it, but I think I can clear up any confusion with a slight rewording of my original point. If you can or have contributed to the pot you should get a say.

Much easier if everyone was entitled to vote than have Politicians with vested interests bringing in blurry lined c**p......

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Celtic- SNP
Rangers- Any unionist party

Basically.  Not all Celtic fans support the SNP, but Rangers fans are more likely to support the Tories - mostly because they were the largest anti-independence party around referendum time.

I see. I'm sure there are people voting for all types of silly reasons, but I don't see it as an argument to lower the voting age to 16.

Its not so much an argument for or against it, its more to counter the point that “kids dont know what they’re doing” when theres plenty evidence to suggest a lot of adults dont either, so why not let them get a vote?

Well the reason why the vote is at 18 is because that's the age of adulthood and we accept that adults should vote. Tax-payers, maturity etc. it's all a sideshow. Adults have the right to vote, children don't. That's the line.

If we're lowering the voting age to 16, then we should also give 16 year olds greater rights and responsibilities in other areas, otherwise there would be an inconsistency.

Samo wrote:Local elections 2023: Voter ID backfired on Tories, says Rees-Mogg https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65599380

Atleast he’s finally being honest about something.

Yes, as I said before the local elections, voter ID changes favour Labour more than the Tories, because younger people, and those who are not white (both groups heavily Labour over Tory), are more likely to have the necessary ID.

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Celtic- SNP
Rangers- Any unionist party

Basically.  Not all Celtic fans support the SNP, but Rangers fans are more likely to support the Tories - mostly because they were the largest anti-independence party around referendum time.

I see. I'm sure there are people voting for all types of silly reasons, but I don't see it as an argument to lower the voting age to 16.

Its not so much an argument for or against it, its more to counter the point that “kids dont know what they’re doing” when theres plenty evidence to suggest a lot of adults dont either, so why not let them get a vote?

Well the reason why the vote is at 18 is because that's the age of adulthood and we accept that adults should vote. Tax-payers, maturity etc. it's all a sideshow. Adults have the right to vote, children don't. That's the line.

If we're lowering the voting age to 16, then we should also give 16 year olds greater rights and responsibilities in other areas, otherwise there would be an inconsistency.

Like what ???...Expand your theory

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Celtic- SNP
Rangers- Any unionist party

Basically.  Not all Celtic fans support the SNP, but Rangers fans are more likely to support the Tories - mostly because they were the largest anti-independence party around referendum time.

I see. I'm sure there are people voting for all types of silly reasons, but I don't see it as an argument to lower the voting age to 16.

Its not so much an argument for or against it, its more to counter the point that “kids dont know what they’re doing” when theres plenty evidence to suggest a lot of adults dont either, so why not let them get a vote?

Well the reason why the vote is at 18 is because that's the age of adulthood and we accept that adults should vote. Tax-payers, maturity etc. it's all a sideshow. Adults have the right to vote, children don't. That's the line.

If we're lowering the voting age to 16, then we should also give 16 year olds greater rights and responsibilities in other areas, otherwise there would be an inconsistency.

Like what ???...Expand your theory

If we lower the voting age to 16, then we are accepting 16 year olds as adults.

So, along with that change, people from the age of 16 should: be eligible to stand for election; be eligible to serve on juries; be allowed to gamble/smoke/buy alcohol/get married; be tried in a full court of law for criminal matters, not a youth court etc.

I don't actually agree with any of these things, of course. I see 16 year olds as children who should not be given adult responsibilities such as voting or jury service. But if you think they're old enough to vote, surely they're old enough to serve on a jury, or put a tenner on the 13:30 at Chepstow?

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Celtic- SNP
Rangers- Any unionist party

Basically.  Not all Celtic fans support the SNP, but Rangers fans are more likely to support the Tories - mostly because they were the largest anti-independence party around referendum time.

I see. I'm sure there are people voting for all types of silly reasons, but I don't see it as an argument to lower the voting age to 16.

Its not so much an argument for or against it, its more to counter the point that “kids dont know what they’re doing” when theres plenty evidence to suggest a lot of adults dont either, so why not let them get a vote?

Well the reason why the vote is at 18 is because that's the age of adulthood and we accept that adults should vote. Tax-payers, maturity etc. it's all a sideshow. Adults have the right to vote, children don't. That's the line.

If we're lowering the voting age to 16, then we should also give 16 year olds greater rights and responsibilities in other areas, otherwise there would be an inconsistency.

Like what ???...Expand your theory

If we lower the voting age to 16, then we are accepting 16 year olds as adults.

So, along with that change, people from the age of 16 should: be eligible to stand for election; be eligible to serve on juries; be allowed to gamble/smoke/buy alcohol/get married; be tried in a full court of law for criminal matters, not a youth court etc.

I don't actually agree with any of these things, of course. I see 16 year olds as children who should not be given adult responsibilities such as voting or jury service. But if you think they're old enough to vote, surely they're old enough to serve on a jury, or put a tenner on the 13:30 at Chepstow?

Yes but 18 year olds can vote and yet..........You can't drive certain vehicles unless you are 21....You can't try to adopt a child until you are 21....You can't apply to fly a helicopter or plane until you are 21...and some clubs only allow in over 21s.....

So why can't 16 year olds vote without having more responsibilities..

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:Local elections 2023: Voter ID backfired on Tories, says Rees-Mogg https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65599380

Atleast he’s finally being honest about something.

Yes, as I said before the local elections, voter ID changes favour Labour more than the Tories, because younger people, and those who are not white (both groups heavily Labour over Tory), are more likely to have the necessary ID.

And like others said before, the Tories brought it in because they thought it would help them, not because they thought it was to solve an important problem.

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Celtic- SNP
Rangers- Any unionist party

Basically.  Not all Celtic fans support the SNP, but Rangers fans are more likely to support the Tories - mostly because they were the largest anti-independence party around referendum time.

I see. I'm sure there are people voting for all types of silly reasons, but I don't see it as an argument to lower the voting age to 16.

Its not so much an argument for or against it, its more to counter the point that “kids dont know what they’re doing” when theres plenty evidence to suggest a lot of adults dont either, so why not let them get a vote?

Well the reason why the vote is at 18 is because that's the age of adulthood and we accept that adults should vote. Tax-payers, maturity etc. it's all a sideshow. Adults have the right to vote, children don't. That's the line.

If we're lowering the voting age to 16, then we should also give 16 year olds greater rights and responsibilities in other areas, otherwise there would be an inconsistency.

Like what ???...Expand your theory

If we lower the voting age to 16, then we are accepting 16 year olds as adults.

So, along with that change, people from the age of 16 should: be eligible to stand for election; be eligible to serve on juries; be allowed to gamble/smoke/buy alcohol/get married; be tried in a full court of law for criminal matters, not a youth court etc.

I don't actually agree with any of these things, of course. I see 16 year olds as children who should not be given adult responsibilities such as voting or jury service. But if you think they're old enough to vote, surely they're old enough to serve on a jury, or put a tenner on the 13:30 at Chepstow?

You can give them the right to vote and not give them any of the other things you mentioned. Its not actually that difficult, we do it in Scotland just fine.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Celtic- SNP
Rangers- Any unionist party

Basically.  Not all Celtic fans support the SNP, but Rangers fans are more likely to support the Tories - mostly because they were the largest anti-independence party around referendum time.

I see. I'm sure there are people voting for all types of silly reasons, but I don't see it as an argument to lower the voting age to 16.

Its not so much an argument for or against it, its more to counter the point that “kids dont know what they’re doing” when theres plenty evidence to suggest a lot of adults dont either, so why not let them get a vote?

Well the reason why the vote is at 18 is because that's the age of adulthood and we accept that adults should vote. Tax-payers, maturity etc. it's all a sideshow. Adults have the right to vote, children don't. That's the line.

If we're lowering the voting age to 16, then we should also give 16 year olds greater rights and responsibilities in other areas, otherwise there would be an inconsistency.

Like what ???...Expand your theory

If we lower the voting age to 16, then we are accepting 16 year olds as adults.

So, along with that change, people from the age of 16 should: be eligible to stand for election; be eligible to serve on juries; be allowed to gamble/smoke/buy alcohol/get married; be tried in a full court of law for criminal matters, not a youth court etc.

I don't actually agree with any of these things, of course. I see 16 year olds as children who should not be given adult responsibilities such as voting or jury service. But if you think they're old enough to vote, surely they're old enough to serve on a jury, or put a tenner on the 13:30 at Chepstow?

Yes but 18 year olds can vote and yet..........You can't drive certain vehicles unless you are 21....You can't try to adopt a child until you are 21....You can't apply to fly a helicopter or plane until you are 21...and some clubs only allow in over 21s.....

So why can't 16 year olds vote without having more responsibilities..

People vote at 18 because it's the age of maturity. If that is lowered, then age of maturity is lowered. If you're not lowering the age of maturity, then why shouldn't 14 or 15 year olds get the vote as well?

And what is the logical reason for saying that someone is old enough to vote, but isn't old enough to serve on a jury or get married?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:Local elections 2023: Voter ID backfired on Tories, says Rees-Mogg https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65599380

Atleast he’s finally being honest about something.

Yes, as I said before the local elections, voter ID changes favour Labour more than the Tories, because younger people, and those who are not white (both groups heavily Labour over Tory), are more likely to have the necessary ID.

And like others said before, the Tories brought it in because they thought it would help them, not because they thought it was to solve an important problem.

This remains unproven.

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:Local elections 2023: Voter ID backfired on Tories, says Rees-Mogg https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65599380

Atleast he’s finally being honest about something.

Yes, as I said before the local elections, voter ID changes favour Labour more than the Tories, because younger people, and those who are not white (both groups heavily Labour over Tory), are more likely to have the necessary ID.

And like others said before, the Tories brought it in because they thought it would help them, not because they thought it was to solve an important problem.

This remains unproven.

The first sentence in the article is literally "Jacob Rees-Mogg has suggested the Conservatives introduced voter ID to boost their election chances, but it came "back to bite them"."

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Celtic- SNP
Rangers- Any unionist party

Basically.  Not all Celtic fans support the SNP, but Rangers fans are more likely to support the Tories - mostly because they were the largest anti-independence party around referendum time.

I see. I'm sure there are people voting for all types of silly reasons, but I don't see it as an argument to lower the voting age to 16.

Its not so much an argument for or against it, its more to counter the point that “kids dont know what they’re doing” when theres plenty evidence to suggest a lot of adults dont either, so why not let them get a vote?

Well the reason why the vote is at 18 is because that's the age of adulthood and we accept that adults should vote. Tax-payers, maturity etc. it's all a sideshow. Adults have the right to vote, children don't. That's the line.

If we're lowering the voting age to 16, then we should also give 16 year olds greater rights and responsibilities in other areas, otherwise there would be an inconsistency.

Like what ???...Expand your theory

If we lower the voting age to 16, then we are accepting 16 year olds as adults.

So, along with that change, people from the age of 16 should: be eligible to stand for election; be eligible to serve on juries; be allowed to gamble/smoke/buy alcohol/get married; be tried in a full court of law for criminal matters, not a youth court etc.

I don't actually agree with any of these things, of course. I see 16 year olds as children who should not be given adult responsibilities such as voting or jury service. But if you think they're old enough to vote, surely they're old enough to serve on a jury, or put a tenner on the 13:30 at Chepstow?

You can give them the right to vote and not give them any of the other things you mentioned.  Its not actually that difficult, we do it in Scotland just fine.

Why shouldn't they get the other things, though? Why is someone deemed 16 old enough to make a decision on their country's future, but not old enough to buy themselves a rum and coke?

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:Local elections 2023: Voter ID backfired on Tories, says Rees-Mogg https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65599380

Atleast he’s finally being honest about something.

Yes, as I said before the local elections, voter ID changes favour Labour more than the Tories, because younger people, and those who are not white (both groups heavily Labour over Tory), are more likely to have the necessary ID.

And like others said before, the Tories brought it in because they thought it would help them, not because they thought it was to solve an important problem.

This remains unproven.

The first sentence in the article is literally "Jacob Rees-Mogg has suggested the Conservatives introduced voter ID to boost their election chances, but it came "back to bite them"."

Yes, and? Suggested doesn't mean something has actually happened.

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:Local elections 2023: Voter ID backfired on Tories, says Rees-Mogg https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65599380

Atleast he’s finally being honest about something.

Yes, as I said before the local elections, voter ID changes favour Labour more than the Tories, because younger people, and those who are not white (both groups heavily Labour over Tory), are more likely to have the necessary ID.

And like others said before, the Tories brought it in because they thought it would help them, not because they thought it was to solve an important problem.

This remains unproven.

The first sentence in the article is literally "Jacob Rees-Mogg has suggested the Conservatives introduced voter ID to boost their election chances, but it came "back to bite them"."

Yes, and? Suggested doesn't mean something has actually happened.

Sorry, I forgot that unless he says the exact words " we tried to rig the local elections" then it didnt happen.

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Celtic- SNP
Rangers- Any unionist party

Basically.  Not all Celtic fans support the SNP, but Rangers fans are more likely to support the Tories - mostly because they were the largest anti-independence party around referendum time.

I see. I'm sure there are people voting for all types of silly reasons, but I don't see it as an argument to lower the voting age to 16.

Its not so much an argument for or against it, its more to counter the point that “kids dont know what they’re doing” when theres plenty evidence to suggest a lot of adults dont either, so why not let them get a vote?

Well the reason why the vote is at 18 is because that's the age of adulthood and we accept that adults should vote. Tax-payers, maturity etc. it's all a sideshow. Adults have the right to vote, children don't. That's the line.

If we're lowering the voting age to 16, then we should also give 16 year olds greater rights and responsibilities in other areas, otherwise there would be an inconsistency.

Like what ???...Expand your theory

If we lower the voting age to 16, then we are accepting 16 year olds as adults.

So, along with that change, people from the age of 16 should: be eligible to stand for election; be eligible to serve on juries; be allowed to gamble/smoke/buy alcohol/get married; be tried in a full court of law for criminal matters, not a youth court etc.

I don't actually agree with any of these things, of course. I see 16 year olds as children who should not be given adult responsibilities such as voting or jury service. But if you think they're old enough to vote, surely they're old enough to serve on a jury, or put a tenner on the 13:30 at Chepstow?

You can give them the right to vote and not give them any of the other things you mentioned.  Its not actually that difficult, we do it in Scotland just fine.

Why shouldn't they get the other things, though? Why is someone deemed 16 old enough to make a decision on their country's future, but not old enough to buy themselves a rum and coke?

Dont know mate, you'll need to ask Nicola Sturgeon, all I know is we were able to make that choice and the sky didnt suddenly start falling.

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:Local elections 2023: Voter ID backfired on Tories, says Rees-Mogg https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65599380

Atleast he’s finally being honest about something.

Yes, as I said before the local elections, voter ID changes favour Labour more than the Tories, because younger people, and those who are not white (both groups heavily Labour over Tory), are more likely to have the necessary ID.

And like others said before, the Tories brought it in because they thought it would help them, not because they thought it was to solve an important problem.

This remains unproven.

The first sentence in the article is literally "Jacob Rees-Mogg has suggested the Conservatives introduced voter ID to boost their election chances, but it came "back to bite them"."

Yes, and? Suggested doesn't mean something has actually happened.

Sorry, I forgot that unless he says the exact words " we tried to rig the local elections" then it didnt happen.

It's not a case of whether it did or didn't happen, it's proving the claim. The claim remains unproven.

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Celtic- SNP
Rangers- Any unionist party

Basically.  Not all Celtic fans support the SNP, but Rangers fans are more likely to support the Tories - mostly because they were the largest anti-independence party around referendum time.

I see. I'm sure there are people voting for all types of silly reasons, but I don't see it as an argument to lower the voting age to 16.

Its not so much an argument for or against it, its more to counter the point that “kids dont know what they’re doing” when theres plenty evidence to suggest a lot of adults dont either, so why not let them get a vote?

Well the reason why the vote is at 18 is because that's the age of adulthood and we accept that adults should vote. Tax-payers, maturity etc. it's all a sideshow. Adults have the right to vote, children don't. That's the line.

If we're lowering the voting age to 16, then we should also give 16 year olds greater rights and responsibilities in other areas, otherwise there would be an inconsistency.

Like what ???...Expand your theory

If we lower the voting age to 16, then we are accepting 16 year olds as adults.

So, along with that change, people from the age of 16 should: be eligible to stand for election; be eligible to serve on juries; be allowed to gamble/smoke/buy alcohol/get married; be tried in a full court of law for criminal matters, not a youth court etc.

I don't actually agree with any of these things, of course. I see 16 year olds as children who should not be given adult responsibilities such as voting or jury service. But if you think they're old enough to vote, surely they're old enough to serve on a jury, or put a tenner on the 13:30 at Chepstow?

You can give them the right to vote and not give them any of the other things you mentioned.  Its not actually that difficult, we do it in Scotland just fine.

Why shouldn't they get the other things, though? Why is someone deemed 16 old enough to make a decision on their country's future, but not old enough to buy themselves a rum and coke?

Dont know mate, you'll need to ask Nicola Sturgeon, all I know is we were able to make that choice and the sky didnt suddenly start falling.

I'm not claiming the sky will start falling, I'm asking if people who support the right to vote at 16 also support 16 year olds being able to serve on juries, buy alcohol etc. If they do, then at least it's logically consistent, although I disagree with it. But for those who don't - why is this?

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Celtic- SNP
Rangers- Any unionist party

Basically.  Not all Celtic fans support the SNP, but Rangers fans are more likely to support the Tories - mostly because they were the largest anti-independence party around referendum time.

I see. I'm sure there are people voting for all types of silly reasons, but I don't see it as an argument to lower the voting age to 16.

Its not so much an argument for or against it, its more to counter the point that “kids dont know what they’re doing” when theres plenty evidence to suggest a lot of adults dont either, so why not let them get a vote?

Well the reason why the vote is at 18 is because that's the age of adulthood and we accept that adults should vote. Tax-payers, maturity etc. it's all a sideshow. Adults have the right to vote, children don't. That's the line.

If we're lowering the voting age to 16, then we should also give 16 year olds greater rights and responsibilities in other areas, otherwise there would be an inconsistency.

Like what ???...Expand your theory

If we lower the voting age to 16, then we are accepting 16 year olds as adults.

So, along with that change, people from the age of 16 should: be eligible to stand for election; be eligible to serve on juries; be allowed to gamble/smoke/buy alcohol/get married; be tried in a full court of law for criminal matters, not a youth court etc.

I don't actually agree with any of these things, of course. I see 16 year olds as children who should not be given adult responsibilities such as voting or jury service. But if you think they're old enough to vote, surely they're old enough to serve on a jury, or put a tenner on the 13:30 at Chepstow?

You can give them the right to vote and not give them any of the other things you mentioned.  Its not actually that difficult, we do it in Scotland just fine.

Why shouldn't they get the other things, though? Why is someone deemed 16 old enough to make a decision on their country's future, but not old enough to buy themselves a rum and coke?

Dont know mate, you'll need to ask Nicola Sturgeon, all I know is we were able to make that choice and the sky didnt suddenly start falling.

In Massachusetts it was legal to drink at 17 from the 1930s onwards.....Then it moved to 18 and then to 21 in 1984.........When States would be penalised funding if not enforced after a mass of road accidents deemed to be due to alcohol were increasing.....Some enforced it others didn't....Massachusetts did..

So it is all over the place..

Nothing to do with whether you are smart enough to vote......Just that the age has to be somewhere I guess....

For me if you can drive at 17 then why not vote.....

Re the Tories' reasons moves on voter ID, while the claim is technically "unproven" as Duty says, you'd have to be a complete moron to believe that the Tories enacted this legislation in the interests of security and the integrity of the election. While elections should absolutely be secure and yes, other countries require voter ID, the Tories did not just magically start caring about democracy and the integrity of the election all of a sudden.

This is the same party that illegally prorogued parliament, if you recall.

It should be remembered that voter ID was a manifesto promise in 2019, a manifesto promise in 2017 (which May didn't implement as she didn't have the numbers), and possibly one in 2015 as well (but call me Dave was gone very quickly) - all of this following the recommendation by the Electoral Commission back in 2014 that voter ID should be implemented. So it wasn't a sudden act of a dying government. It was a correct change that has been long in the pipeline and long overdue. I think whenever it was implemented, and whichever party implemented it, accusations of vote-rigging or whatever would have been flung around.

I don't believe Labour are going to repeal this if Starmer gets into no.10, so that's also very telling.

Like I said, if you believe that they implemented this change out of a desire to uphold democracy, then I've got a bridge I can sell you.

Pr4wn wrote:Like I said, if you believe that they implemented this change out of a desire to uphold democracy, then I've got a bridge I can sell you.

Suspension of disbelief pertaining to the Party they support..

Duty281 wrote:It should be remembered that voter ID was a manifesto promise in 2019, a manifesto promise in 2017 (which May didn't implement as she didn't have the numbers), and possibly one in 2015 as well (but call me Dave was gone very quickly) - all of this following the recommendation by the Electoral Commission back in 2014 that voter ID should be implemented. So it wasn't a sudden act of a dying government. It was a correct change that has been long in the pipeline and long overdue. I think whenever it was implemented, and whichever party implemented it, accusations of vote-rigging or whatever would have been flung around.

I don't believe Labour are going to repeal this if Starmer gets into no.10, so that's also very telling.

That is only part of the truth (and even then one that has been muddied by the haunted pencil's recent remarks about it backfiring). In theory, ignoring the traditional lack of problems we have with voter fraud, voter ID is a good idea. How it is sold, how it is implemented and the very thorny issue of what then counts as ID is much more problematic.

Just read that 11m are struggling to pay their bills in the UK......While Energy companies are posting record profits and supermarkets are putting up prices across the board using raw materials for certain items as an excuse..

Plenty of problems but no answers coming from Westminster on both sides.....

Caught the back end of Thatcher and all of Major and nothing was as bad as the level of garbage serving as politicians now....Frauds that can't make it in in the Entertainment industry looking for TV time as politicians.....Jess phillips being the obvious example...Thick as a plank.

I'm asking if people who support the right to vote at 16 also support 16 year olds being able to serve on juries, buy alcohol etc. If they do, then at least it's logically consistent, although I disagree with it. But for those who don't - why is this?

No one wants to give this a bash? Or does hardly anyone on here support votes at 16?