probably more so than the average chav...
Labour plans to lower minimum age of voting
- Thread starter Mynight
- Start date
probably more so than the average chav...
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,608
- Location
- La France
Labour will do/say/promise anything to get back into power.
The Conservatives will do the same to retain power.
The LibDems... Well, it doesn't matter what they do, they're finished.
UKIP's best bet is that none of their members apart from Nigel ever utter a single word in public.
The Conservatives will do the same to retain power.
The LibDems... Well, it doesn't matter what they do, they're finished.
UKIP's best bet is that none of their members apart from Nigel ever utter a single word in public.
I don't see a timescale in that promise. A 23% increase over how many years?
In any case, a promise from a politician rather unlikely to be in a position to do anything about it even if they wanted to is worth a bent ha'penny at best. A promise from one who does become PM is worth little more than that.
EDIT: My mistake - there is a timescale. I've been working too many hours for too little pay - it's addled my brain!So he's promising to increase the minimum wage by 4.2% annually (23% total over 5 years). That's not as dramatic as it's being made out to be.
problem is he's given two dates. first up it says
which would be in the first 12 months. then theres the line about by 2017.
but does smell of labour promising anything it cant to get votes and also hide the whole devolution shambles and gordo's speech showing up milipede.
My decisions at 45 are better considered than my decisions at 24. That's not a good reason for increasing the voting age to 45.
We have to draw a line or some lines (it can reasonably be argued that people should be granted the power to do different things at different ages).
There's only two choices following that - either draw the lines on an individual basis by requiring people to pass some form of test to prove their worthiness to do whatever is being considered (which is a wholesale warehouse worth of cans of worms) or draw them on a fixed age basis even though that won't fit everyone. Which means that we can't use individuals as a guide. We've got to pop out a rough approximation based on hunches and averages and current social norms. The age of majority has varied considerably over time because there's no objective way of defining it. Just in this country, it's been as low as 12 and as high as 21, even 25 for some things (e.g. getting married without parental consent).
I think the status quo is flawed for the reasons that others have pointed out - its inconsistency. There are different lines drawn for different ages and that does make sense as a general principle, but the lines drawn at 16 make drawing the voting line at 18 look inconsistent. I think that reducing the voting age to 16 is flawed too, but more flawed or less flawed? I'm not sure.
You cannot (in England and Wales) Get married or (in the UK) enlist in the Armed Forces without Parental Consent. There are also a wide range of restrictions on under 18s regards working and their rights.
They are not Adults in Law.
For me whether a person is 16 or 60, it doesn't mean they will make better or worse political decisions. Maturity has very little to do with age.
Anyone can decide to be father as soon as they can squirt...whether they are 16 or not doesn't really factor into it.
The explicitly stated date is October 2019. A term of government is 5 years, so he's counting that as "the next parliament", which will be May 2015 to May 2020.
It's not internally inconsistent (although it is inaccurate phrasing). That doesn't mean it's true, of course. A promise from a politician is more trustworthy than an email from a Nigerian prince who wants your help getting millions of pounds of money out of the country...but not much more.
Very true. I'm sure I had a point by saying that I just can't remember it
. So can't have been that good of one
.But doesn't society provide that individuals are only mature enough to have children when they are 16?
Not really. It's not illegal to have children at any age.
This. The whole age of consent issue needs to sorted. As has been pointed out in many places, at sixteen you can die for your country, but have no say in who sends you to do so. You can have sex, but can't watch a film of yourself doing it.
The main argument her stems from the fact that young people are perceived as more likely to vote for extreme positions, so the Tories and LibDems won't be so keen, as they won't pick up much of the new vote. The feeling is that UKIP and other bigots will pick up a fair amount, Labour will get some as there's no other even reasonably left-wing parties which aren't a joke, and Nationalists in Scotland, Wales etc will get a fair number.
True, but where do we draw the line?, I'd argue 90% of people are idiots & allowing them to make a difference in the lives of others is also craziness.[FnG]magnolia;26933596 said:
A vote at 16 at least will at least ensure that the needs of 16-18 year old people are not completely ignored, besides as Castiel correctly pointed out. Age has little to do with maturity.
I wonder if they could work in a form of political education. To at least teach people about all the political parties, what they stand for & what the evidence says on each issue. Clearly this would be very difficult to implement due to the potential for bias, but otherwise how on earth do we move to an informed voter base?.
Last edited:
:/
You know the comparable I'm making, there's no need to dismiss it in such a deliberately uncomprehending way!
Last edited:
I'm not sidestepping it. I'm making a valid point that is in context with what I said earlier. Society doesn't provide that individuals are mature enough for children at 16, or any age. Society's acceptances and The Law are not necessarily the same thing, look at Homosexuality for example...it was acceptable to large parts of society long before it was accepted by law, and now it is accepted by law there are still some parts of our society, and other entire societies that it is still anathema to.
The age of consent and the legality (or maturity) to have children are not synonymous, particularly in society. In fact society frowns upon young parents, single parents in particular. The law doesn't however. Even the age of consent is fluid in law.
No you can't. You cannot enlist at 16/17 without parental consent and you certainly cannot 'die for your country' until you are at least 18. 16/17 year olds cannot fight in combat theatre.
Equally you can watch a video of yourself having sex. You simply cannot buy restricted material...the same as many things such as marriage are restricted through Parental Consent until an individual is 18.