Giggerty
Labour plans to lower minimum age of voting
- Thread starter Mynight
- Start date
Giggerty
I appreciate the explanation, which is entirely fair in itself, but you've not picked up on the crux of my original point.
Having a child is a consequence of an action - sex . Similarly, voting for a particular political party is a consequence of another action - voting. Both of the actions, sex and voting, are freedoms. But society (or law if we really want to separate them, but that doesn't matter), provides that individuals may only legally have sex (e.g. execute the action) at the age of 16. It also deems that individuals may only vote (e.g. execute the action) at the age of 18. Therefore the age restriction with both reflects a prerequisite of maturity before an individual can carry out that action because of the potential severity of the consequences.
This implies that the consequences following from the freedom to have sex are considered to be less serious than the potential consequences that follow from the freedom to vote.
You can then come up with an army of reasons to try and justify the higher prerequisite of maturity for voting e.g. voting affects everyone, contraception is freely available and so on. Ultimately, both age limits are totally arbitrary as they attempt to address maturity in the only way it realistically can - with a sweeping judgement based on age. But it does amuse me that that one which has the most serious consequence (having a child at a very young age) is the action with the lower age limit.
Edit - Wow, I really did just describe sex as 'executing the action'.
Last edited:
I don't disagree with you in principle. I don't accept that the age of consent implies maturity or that it is entirely comparable to voting. Society also is quite split on the age of consent, going so far as to apply the law only in certain circumstances which create a level of harm. For example while it is illegal to have sex under the age of 16, the law isn't generally going to prosecute two 15 year olds for having consensual sex...even if there are children as a consequence.
I also think we are ignoring intent, you can have sex without the intent to have children as the consequence, whereas you cannot vote without the intent to elect a particular party or individual, so I don't think we should be equating the age of consent with having children in the legal sense and I have already explained why we should not compare them as regards to acceptance in Society as a whole. This all doesn't consider that the Age of Legal Responsibility is as low as 10 years old in the UK...there is a question of how that reconciles with everything we have said here?
For the record I am open minded on the subjects of suffrage and the Age of Consent as well as the Age of Majority.
you mean like last time when the lib dems signed up to the tuition fee's hahah
as a couple of have said promises mean very little from politicians.
Don't think its a particularly good idea, as mentioned I imagine a lot of latest 'trends' would get pushed through. Age limits in this country are a bit bizarre. Legal adult at 18, drive at 17, work at 16, CSA makes the paying parent pay up until the child is 20 as long as the receiving parent is getting child benefit which confounds me. I would tackle the sex at 16 issue but considering other countries are as low as 12/13 we're not too bad on that front 
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
This is because they realized that the youth of the day are all labour because the school system and tv has made them that way thanks to labour programs from the past. If we have voting reform it needs to be in the opposite direction, older age limit and more restrictions on who can and can not vote. No voting unless over 30 and you own a land or a property privately and if your a government employee then you can not vote. To recap, Have to be over 30, property or land owner and have been a private tax payer for 5 years and british passport. That will sort it out.
Ill explain why that is better, over 30 so that they have developed some intelligence and can vote from a better basis, property owner so that they have a direct incentive in the positive continuation of the country that they own property in, private tax payer and not government employee so that there is no conflict of interest and the tax payers then might start expecting value for money and british passport for obvious reasons.
Ill explain why that is better, over 30 so that they have developed some intelligence and can vote from a better basis, property owner so that they have a direct incentive in the positive continuation of the country that they own property in, private tax payer and not government employee so that there is no conflict of interest and the tax payers then might start expecting value for money and british passport for obvious reasons.
Last edited:
How has the school system made the youth Labour supporters? I am not entirely sure that the hour of PSHE they get a week is really all that effective a propaganda tool especially when it is generally focused on non political things. But if you have a greater insight, please share it.
Putting aside the disenfranchisement of millions that your proposals would incur, what if you have been a private tax payer for 15 years and then switch to the public sector? How long to you get to vote for? Only the years you are paying tax? I take it you think pensioners shouldn't be able to vote too? Or only those in receipt of a private pension? Do I get to vote if I have a mortgage as technically the bank owns my house? Do I get to vote if I work for a private company that does work for the public sector?
I would rather the voting age was 21+
The army argument, weak, no under 18 will serve in army regulars till 18.
Mortgage is VERY weak, even if the bank does give them the mortgage, 90% of bank's will ask the parents guarantee the rate.
Not even old enough to drink and smoke.
The army argument, weak, no under 18 will serve in army regulars till 18.
Mortgage is VERY weak, even if the bank does give them the mortgage, 90% of bank's will ask the parents guarantee the rate.
Not even old enough to drink and smoke.
Last edited:
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
If you have to pay taxes then you should be able to vote.
No taxation without representation.
No taxation without representation.
So you think that only tax payers should have representation.
I don't think that he what he meant.
Indeed. This is what lead to the American revolution. Lets have an English revolution and devolve more powers to the counties. Self governance for each county under the umbrella of a federal government with a well defined constitution has to be better than what we have now. Viva la revolution dudes !!!
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
I'll rephrase it.
If you're required to pay income tax on earnings, then you should be able to vote.
So if you are a student of 16 who doesn't pay tax you shouldn't vote, but if you are a 16 year old who does, you should.
What about all those who do not pay net tax? Or those unemployed, homemakers, retired, and so on....they are not required to pay tax. Linking representation to taxation opens up all kinds of inequality.
The implications are important.
Only if you like arguing for the sake of it.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Students of 16 ARE required to pay tax on earnings. The unemployed ARE required to pay tax on earnings. The retired ARE required to pay tax on earnings. Homemakers ARE required to pay tax on earnings. The above are all assesed for tax purposes, even if the actual liability is zero.
Exactly this.
You pay tax, you are a resident, you get to decide how the tax is managed.