Labour plans to lower minimum age of voting

RDM said:
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?
Click to expand...

The school system and the bbc, has made them labour supporters. It failed to teach them the importance of capitalism and made most of them anti-capitalists. Like all those at the student riots demanding free education, labour realy latched on to that, they see the potential in the student vote as they have deep tentacles in to the student areas.

If you have paid tax for 5 years in the private sector and you meet the other criteria then you can vote, how ever not if you currently work for the public sector. Working for the public sector, the other criteria don't matter you don't have a vote. You can vote until you can no longer participate. Once you meet the criteria and you have paid tax for 5 years then you can vote even if you stop paying tax. Welfare recipients can vote if they have paid tax for 5 years and meet all the other criteria. Even i would lose the vote because i don't own property. If you have a mortgage that qualifies for owning the property and you can vote. This would not realy be such a problem because by the time most people reach 30 they have worked in the private sector for over 5 years and then all they need to do is buy some land or house and they can get the vote if they are british.
 
amigafan2003 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So everyone of any age should get a vote then?
 
Of course they want 16 and 17 year olds to vote. The younger you are, the more likely you are to have left-wing political views.
 
Castiel said:
So everyone of any age should get a vote then?
Click to expand...

Well I suppose it isn't qute that straight forward because whilst under 16 year olds do have to pay income tax (to prevent the rich using children as proxies for tax purposes) they aren't liable for NI contributions.

I still favour the "no taxation without representation" principle though.

And to be honest, why shouldn't children be able to vote? Think of all the policies directed at children - why shouldn't they decide on what affects them? The things my son comes out with - such as "why don't we give homeless people houses?", "why do people go hungry when we throw food away?" and "why do people drive to work in cars when they live near enough to cycle?" the truth of which can only be seen through a childs eyes. Letting children vote could be a fantastic driver for social change.
 
cainer said:
up the minimum wage + lower the voting age = win for Labour? :o
Click to expand...


Majority Labour vote, Until tards start to grasp that people will just raise prices and cancel out all the gains. Labour are idiots because either they know this or they are too dumb to realize. If you have goods to sell just up your prices to get more profit. Banks, Power companies they will ALL raise thier bills once £8 comes.

Which will basically mean a huge Welfare cut. How do you destroy the Welfare state overnight? Well you just put wages up to £9 an hour, And freeze benefits before you do it. In the morning they will find that inflation has left them without enough to live on, While everyone else will find that they take home the same amount as they do now. The only way to actually give people more, Is to put a cap on profits or nationalize utilitys to put more money in peoples pockets and block price rises that cancel out the gains. Labour know this, Which is why they are a parasitic capitalist party trying to make people believe they are socialists or something.


Labour voters are the dumbest sheep out there. Baaaa
 
Last edited:
Rofflay said:
Majority Labour vote, Until tards start to grasp that people will just raise prices. Labour are idiots because either they know this or they are too dumb. If you have goods to sell just up your prices to get more profit. Banks, Power companies they will ALL raise thier bills once £8 comes.
Click to expand...

Until tards start to grasp that taxpayers are subsidising firms to pay wages. Making firms pay a living wage reduces the benefits paid out by taxpayers. The Right are too dumb to realise this and make cut backs to all to subsidise firms who do their best to avoid paying taxes.
 
That should be stopped which is another reason Labour are a laughing stock and for the record my political spectrum is not on the right... How will you stop subsidy when they have to meet an £8 per hour wage? They will simply hire less people and will play a game of chicken. And when people start to moan about job losses you will subsidise again because no one in the UK has the guts to cap profits.


Minimum wage increases are cat and mouse... You can never improve this way you HAVE to cap profits there is simply no other way to improve the standard of living in this country for people through thier wages. Which is why people are now worse off than before the crash. This increase would just be making this in line with the wages pre crash but hey dont let Labour tell you that huh?


TUC called for £10 per hour! It is all a trick to get voters it is smoke and mirrors.
 
Last edited:
amigafan2003 said:
Well I suppose it isn't qute that straight forward because whilst under 16 year olds do have to pay income tax (to prevent the rich using children as proxies for tax purposes) they aren't liable for NI contributions.

I still favour the "no taxation without representation" principle though.

And to be honest, why shouldn't children be able to vote? Think of all the policies directed at children - why shouldn't they decide on what affects them? The things my son comes out with - such as "why don't we give homeless people houses?", "why do people go hungry when we throw food away?" and "why do people drive to work in cars when they live near enough to cycle?" the truth of which can only be seen through a childs eyes. Letting children vote could be a fantastic driver for social change.
Click to expand...

Allowing Children to vote would also have some unforeseen issues...one would be political parties specifically targeting children, particularly the youngest ones. Also there is the issue of parental influence on children's decision making, more than some will simply use their children as proxies for their own political leanings. It could drive social change, but that change may well not be for the better. I suspect that it would be a dystopia rather than an utopia.
 
Castiel said:
Allowing Children to vote would also have some unforeseen issues...one would be political parties specifically targeting children, particularly the youngest ones. Also there is the issue of parental influence on children's decision making, more than some will simply use their children as proxies for their own political leanings. It could drive social change, but that change may well not be for the better. I suspect that it would be a dystopia rather than an utopia.
Click to expand...

That probably happens to a degree now anyway.
 
OldCoals said:
That probably happens to a degree now anyway.
Click to expand...

I suspect it does, but it would be magnified exponentially if every child could also vote...with such political leanings ingrained at a very early age directly, not only by Parents but by the Political System itself.

There are too many issues to have an open ended suffrage system.
 
Castiel said:
I suspect it does, but it would be magnified exponentially if every child could also vote...with such political leanings ingrained at a very early age directly, not only by Parents but by the Political System itself.

There are too many issues to have an open ended suffrage system.
Click to expand...

If a government is going to take money from you it is only right that you should have a ability to choose the government.
 
anything I don't mind said:
The school system and the bbc, has made them labour supporters. It failed to teach them the importance of capitalism and made most of them anti-capitalists. Like all those at the student riots demanding free education, labour realy latched on to that, they see the potential in the student vote as they have deep tentacles in to the student areas.
Click to expand...

All you have done is repeated the "what" without answering the "how". You need to explain how the school system is making lots of little labour voters.

anything I don't mind said:
If you have paid tax for 5 years in the private sector and you meet the other criteria then you can vote, how ever not if you currently work for the public sector. Working for the public sector, the other criteria don't matter you don't have a vote. You can vote until you can no longer participate. Once you meet the criteria and you have paid tax for 5 years then you can vote even if you stop paying tax. Welfare recipients can vote if they have paid tax for 5 years and meet all the other criteria. Even i would lose the vote because i don't own property. If you have a mortgage that qualifies for owning the property and you can vote. This would not realy be such a problem because by the time most people reach 30 they have worked in the private sector for over 5 years and then all they need to do is buy some land or house and they can get the vote if they are british.
Click to expand...

I think the only positive in your proposal is that you would lose the right to vote, other than that I see it as nothing more than an elitist move to disenfranchise anyone that doesn't share your political views rather than as an actual fix to our democratic system.
 
Allowing Children to vote would also have some unforeseen issues...one would be political parties specifically targeting children, particularly the youngest ones.
Click to expand...


Far too dangerous, Read up on what Utoya island was used for. Why is it they are all going after the youth? Can they not just leave people alone i guess this is a form of ownership of thier children in that they cannot bare to see thier kids grow up and make thier own decisions.

the importance of capitalism
Click to expand...


Considering every Human is born into the world without any kind of posessions or entitlement, How is capitalism important hahaha? It is just a method of controlling someone who has less posessions than you. Hence the name capitalism, You need capital. This would be the same system that makes sure none of you will own your house until you are approaching pension age. Very important!! Also remember that upon death people can transfer thier capital so you can clearly see why this system was chosen.
 
Last edited:
The increase to the minimum wage is interesting. Increasing it to £8 an hour.

However reading this quote from the BBC:

The Labour leader rejected claims it would cost jobs and be unaffordable for the public sector, such as local councils and hospitals, who are among the biggest employers of low-paid staff.

"It is actually going to save money in benefits," the Labour leader told BBC1's Andrew Marr Show.

"What is happening at the moment is that we are spending billions of pounds subsidising employers who are paying low wages, billions of pounds in benefits, tax credits and housing benefit.

"It is going to have no cost at all to the public sector, and it is the government's own figures that say that."
Click to expand...

So if the cost to the public sector would be 100% made up in savings in benefits paid out then it would have zero impact on people on minimum wage if they worked in the public sector.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom