Poll: General election voting intentions poll

[robgmun]

If they're old enough to pay tax, they're old enough to vote in my opinion.

I don't know many 16-17 earning more than £10,600 per year

 

[elmarko]

I don't know many 16-17 earning more than £10,600 per year

Income tax isn't the only kind of tax.

Income tax
Inheritance tax
Council Tax
Value added tax - VAT
Excise duties
Stamp duty
Motoring taxation
National Insurance contributions
Capital gains tax

 

[Mr Jack]

The debate around allowing/denying certain groups a vote usually is bias by people wanting/not wanting young people to vote (who will vote against/for there own political preference).

I note only that younger people skew liberal, environmentalist and pro-EU so at the very least this is an over-generalisation.

If somebody can give me a reason as to why they should be denied the vote (which doesn't also apply to half the population of the UK who can) I'd be willing to consider it, but at this stage it just seems like an arbitrary line.

Of course, it's an arbitrary line. It's still an arbitrary line to allow 16/17 year olds to vote and not 14/15 and it would be an arbitrary line if we moved it up to an age of 21. It's got to be a question of balance. It will always be the case that a line based on age will throw up anomalies: some 14 year olds are smarter and better informed about politics than some people will ever be, for example.

18 is the internationally recognised dividing line between children and adults and thus provides a relatively sensible arbitrary point to choose. It's also the current voting age and I think that if we're to change it that proponents of allowing 16/17 year olds to vote need to come up with a coherent argument why the change will improve matters rather than simply relying on the obvious fact that it is an arbitrary cut-off.

 

[Mr Jack]

If they're old enough to pay tax, they're old enough to vote in my opinion.

Children pay tax from the first time they buy themselves a toy or a packet of biscuits. It's thus a pretty weak basis for deciding on when they're old enough to vote.

On the other hand, if you're talking purely about income taxes, then a great many students don't pay any income tax until after they graduate.

 

[Rroff]

The lib-dems prove they are utterly out of touch and irrelevant.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/05/lib-dems-block-tough-strategy-extremism

I dunno:

"including reduced benefits for people who struggle to speak English" - seems a bit open to abuse and not really inline with British values in itself.

"training for Jobcentre Plus staff so that they can spy on people considered vulnerable to extremism" - Can see this one going all kinds of wrong and again open to abuse - especially misuse outside its "intended" purpose.

"and banning individuals from entering the UK if they are judged to have 'undermined British values'."

Agree with that one however but not really worth it if it meant ramming the other 2 in at the same time - definitely needs to be something implemented on its own merit not bundled in with other questionable measures.

I don't know many 16-17 earning more than £10,600 per year

Was earning £10,900 (coincidentally found a scan of the paperwork from the temp agency last night while sorting some old backups) a year back in the late 90s while a student - a lot of my friends who went straight into full time employment were earning the same or more doing warehouse work, etc. :S

EDIT: Its changed a lot mind - some of them went to full time warehouse night shifts and were making close to 30K now adays I don't think anyone is paying like that. (Just done a quick scrape of the jobs boards and upper end is about 18 grand for the same sort of role or ~25-28K for supervisor roles).

 

[Dolph]

If they're old enough to pay tax, they're old enough to vote in my opinion.

Surely that should apply across the board and in reverse if it is a justifiable reason?

Net tax payer = vote
Not a net taxpayer != vote.

Or is is an inconsistent position?

 

[elmarko]

I note only that younger people skew liberal, environmentalist and pro-EU so at the very least this is an over-generalisation.

Of course, it's an arbitrary line. It's still an arbitrary line to allow 16/17 year olds to vote and not 14/15 and it would be an arbitrary line if we moved it up to an age of 21. It's got to be a question of balance. It will always be the case that a line based on age will throw up anomalies: some 14 year olds are smarter and better informed about politics than some people will ever be, for example.

18 is the internationally recognised dividing line between children and adults and thus provides a relatively sensible arbitrary point to choose. It's also the current voting age and I think that if we're to change it that proponents of allowing 16/17 year olds to vote need to come up with a coherent argument why the change will improve matters rather than simply relying on the obvious fact that it is an arbitrary cut-off.

I'd say that leaving formal education is a more logical cut off point, as not everybody goes into college or university at 16/17.

Not that it would make a huge difference, but there are few arguments against it - but I agree there are no really big arguments in favour - aside from the fact that I'd want a good justification for denying a person the vote.

A 15 year old can be tried as an adult if I recall correctly, they are no longer under the umbrella of parental responsibility & can move out - this to me indicates that society deems they 'able to make choices' & therefore should be allowed to vote.

Don't get me wrong, if we had an intelligent & informed public I'd be in favour of extending it - but considering how poor the standard really is I don't think we can use any arguments based on ignorance.

 

[Mr Jack]

I'd say that leaving formal education is a more logical cut off point, as not everybody goes into college or university at 16/17.

The school leaving age is rising to 18 this year. Although you can continue in training rather than education.

A 15 year old can be tried as an adult if I recall correctly, they are no longer under the umbrella of parental responsibility & can move out - this to me indicates that society deems they 'able to make choices' & therefore should be allowed to vote.

AIUI, anyone over the age of 10 can be "tried as an adult" but this is only done in exceptional circumstances and anyone from 10 to 17 appears at a youth court by default unless they're being jointly prosecuted with an adult. In my view, no child should ever be tried as an adult but that's a discussion for another day.

 

[Destination]

Surely that should apply across the board and in reverse if it is a justifiable reason?

Net tax payer = vote
Not a net taxpayer != vote.

Or is is an inconsistent position?

Humans rights chaps will put you on a cross and burn you.

 

[Rroff]

Don't get me wrong, if we had an intelligent & informed public I'd be in favour of extending it - but considering how poor the standard really is I don't think we can use any arguments based on ignorance.

Personally how much my head was around politics never really changed from 12-13 through to about 30 - its only in the last couple of years I've really started to have a deeper understanding of it and would have voted based on anything other than fairly superficial reasons.

 

[Sliver]

Humans rights chaps will put you on a cross and burn you.

I think you're getting confused with the religious. Human rights chaps will generally sit you down with a cup of tea and discuss it. It's called being civilised and it's what separates us from animals.

Vote Labour peasants !!!!

 

[inogen]

Children pay tax from the first time they buy themselves a toy or a packet of biscuits.

The idea that children should need their own independent income stream, or even worse, have to go out to work for money in order to afford themselves biscuits is outrageous.

Surely in this day and age, parents should be giving their children money to buy biscuits? Or even buying biscuits for them in the shop?

 

[Destination]

I think you're getting confused with the religious. Human rights chaps will generally sit you down with a cup of tea and discuss it. It's called being civilised and it's what separates us from animals.

Vote Labour peasants !!!!

Shush! They foam at the mouth just like the religious types, just their zealotry extends in a different direction.

 

[ubersonic]

Lol, has anybody seen the picture of the note the Tories posted to their twitter/FB?

Apparently the former Labour chief treasurer left a note for his Tory replacement saying "I'm afraid there is no money. Kind regards and good luck!"

Poor Ed, first Tony Blair (the man he said was wrong to invade Iraq) declares his full support for him doing more harm than good, now the Tories dump this on the interwebs to show his party were actually laughing about the damage they caused and wouldn't have to fix.

 

[Lifelong]

Its ridiculous to have 16 years old voting, but I guess it's an easy way to gain votes from people of an impressionable age (especially those who can shout the loudest).

 

[Destination]

The idea that children should need their own independent income stream, or even worse, have to go out to work for money in order to afford themselves biscuits is outrageous.

Surely in this day and age, parents should be giving their children money to buy biscuits? Or even buying biscuits for them in the shop?

Now, now, down pit kids can make a man of themselves!
Buy their own biscuits and pay their own VAT, as long as it is the right type of biscuits, some are exempt from VAT, this won't have been lost on Mr Jack.

 

[leaskovski]

Lol, has anybody seen the picture of the note the Tories posted to their twitter/FB?

Apparently the former Labour chief treasurer left a note for his Tory replacement saying "I'm afraid there is no money. Kind regards and good luck!"

Poor Ed, first Tony Blair (the man he said was wrong to invade Iraq) declares his full support for him doing more harm than good, now the Tories dump this on the interwebs to show his party were actually laughing about the damage they caused and wouldn't have to fix.

This one that did the rounds years ago...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8688470.stm

and then again in 2013...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...m-Byrnes-flippant-note-joked-sorry-money.html

Said twitter post...

https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/status/585354369475969024

 

[Destination]

Lol, has anybody seen the picture of the note the Tories posted to their twitter/FB?

Apparently the former Labour chief treasurer left a note for his Tory replacement saying "I'm afraid there is no money. Kind regards and good luck!"

Poor Ed, first Tony Blair (the man he said was wrong to invade Iraq) declares his full support for him doing more harm than good, now the Tories dump this on the interwebs to show his party were actually laughing about the damage they caused and wouldn't have to fix.

Aye, but we first heard this 5 years ago when they got in.
They're just bringing it back to peoples attention.
It is nothing new.

 

[Dolph]

Humans rights chaps will put you on a cross and burn you.

And so they should, the solution to our problem of selling elections to party supporters using money taken from the supporters of other parties is equal treatment under the law not disenfranchisement.

 

[Uther]

And the Con chief treasurer will leave exactly the same note for the new Labour treasurer to find...