zebedee Posted November 21, 2015 Report Share Posted November 21, 2015 I think the young voters are generally much more engaged with politics that we were when I was that age, in part due to social media and here in Scotland due to the independence campaign. Politics is much more visible and accessible than it used to be. Are all young people engaging with politics? No. But then I know many adults that don't engage with politics (and I know two people that proudly declare that have never voted). At the moment, people aged 18 to 118+ can vote. Adding another two years of people is unlikely to suddenly swing the vote as dramatically as you seem to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter.l Posted November 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 (edited) It seems we have a situation bordering the semi-pacifist nonsense mentioned earlierJeremy Corbyn MP leader of the Labour Party and Opposition has made it clear he's against the UN resolution to take the war with I.S. to into their own camp in Syria or elsewhere. His answer to the problem is talks, discussions and blocking/freezing terrorists assets and funding, preventing the selling and buying of terrorist oil etc. (Money grabbing rears its ugly head again) Question time.....How long would it take to implement his master plan?How does he intend to stop foreign countries buying much needed oil?Why wasn't this done before now?What will the terrorists be doing while all this is going on? Financial leverage seldom works as planned. Even if it did, it could beseveral years before it produced anything like the desired effect. Meanwhileon the streets of Europe...??? This is about 16-17 year olds getting the vote. In theory they should have a say in their own personal future. Nothing wrong with that, but these are troubled times and whatever the situation may be, giving them the vote at such an early age is not a wise move. There's currently a terrorist war going on. The issues are far too complicated and far reaching to involve inexperienced 16 year olds who would not fully understand what's going on or problem solving on a national scale. Giving them the vote is asking them to take a hand in deciding a course of action.The war to end all wars ended in 1918, Chamberlain waved a worthless piece of paper declaring "Peace in our time" Issues that ignore history and promote pacifist sympathies are foolhardy. And we are suggesting 16 year olds about to leave school should have a say in such things????I could bang on all day, but I think I've made my point. Edited November 22, 2015 by peter.l scatness 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post zebedee Posted November 22, 2015 Popular Post Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 And how many adults fully understand what's going on? How many know how to solve it? I think you give adults to much credit and the youth not enough. Selkie, whalsa and Capeesh 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capeesh Posted November 22, 2015 Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 Invading Afghanistan and Iraq didn't seem to work and those decisions were made by adults.How will bombing and killing more muslims prevent radicalisation? I'm by no means a pacifist, we should definitely have the ability to defend ourselves but I just can't see how going into Syria all guns blazing will stop terrorism.It's like trying to fix a watch with a sledgehammer.I don't have a clue how to prevent atrocities like the one in Paris yet I still have a vote, I can't see why it should be any different for 16 an 17 year olds. whalsa 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted November 22, 2015 Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 How many adults vote according to the wishes of their partner?. Or vote for the same party their parents voted for. Yes give younger people the vote so they can be involved in decision making for their future. OK so not too young but surely 16 is about right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted November 22, 2015 Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 a 16 year old can pay tax so should be able to vote. George. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Suffererof1crankymofo Posted November 22, 2015 Popular Post Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 You can have a provisional licence from the age of 16 if you are in receipt of DLA. You can have a provisional licence for a car at 17. You can have sex, be a parent, get married, yet you can't watch porn. You can drink certain alcohol with meals. So the law as it stands doesn't treat 16 year olds as adults in all areas so why allow them to vote? I stick by what I said, remove the special protection clauses in legislation and fine, let them vote. But decide whether they are adults or not and change the legislation across the board to address the anomalies. George., Acid and whalsa 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted November 22, 2015 Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 This is about 16-17 year olds getting the vote. In theory they should have a say in their own personal future. Nothing wrong with that, but these are troubled times and whatever the situation may be, giving them the vote at such an early age is not a wise move. There's currently a terrorist war going on. The issues are far too complicated and far reaching to involve inexperienced 16 year olds who would not fully understand what's going on or problem solving on a national scale. Giving them the vote is asking them to take a hand in deciding a course of action.The war to end all wars ended in 1918, Chamberlain waved a worthless piece of paper declaring "Peace in our time" Issues that ignore history and promote pacifist sympathies are foolhardy. And we are suggesting 16 year olds about to leave school should have a say in such things????I could bang on all day, but I think I've made my point. Peter, It's kind of funny that you can't trust 16/17 year olds but, the moment they turn 18 they are somehow able to make rational(?) decisions... or, don't you trust 18 year old's either? It's also a little weird that you think that your vote actually counts for anything.. Despite the votes of 16/17 year olds swelling the 'opinion', good and bad decisions will always be made by adults and the kids, just like the rest of us, are obliged to go along with them.. That's democracy for you.. I would agree that giving votes to 16 year old's is a bit of a "vote grabber" and, from my personal standpoint, I do not think that the majority of that age group are quite ready but, having said that, if we can not trust them to "join" with us at 16 then, at what age can we trust them? When I was at school, we had to vote for "House Captains" who, if I remember correctly, were obliged to present various collective decisions and requests to the teachers for approval/denial.. My first taste of the illusion of democracy(?) was at the age of 12. I doubt very much that anything has changed since then but, if we don't try it then, we will never know.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted November 22, 2015 Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 You can have a provisional licence from the age of 16 if you are in receipt of DLA. You can have a provisional licence for a car at 17. You can have sex, be a parent, get married, yet you can't watch porn. You can drink certain alcohol with meals. So the law as it stands doesn't treat 16 year olds as adults in all areas so why allow them to vote? I stick by what I said, remove the special protection clauses in legislation and fine, let them vote. But decide whether they are adults or not and change the legislation across the board to address the anomalies. Agree with the thrust of your argument, give them a level playing field and drop a lot of the anomolous "rules" and laws that "protect" them and, treat them as adults. PS, you can supply a child with certain alcoholic drinks at a lower age than 16 if they are served with a meal. Even "Gripe Water" for infants used to contain alcohol.. (maybe still does?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zebedee Posted November 22, 2015 Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 a 16 year old can pay tax so should be able to vote. Technically you can pay tax from the moment you are born, should you be earning enough. National Insurance, however, starts at age 16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasmie Posted November 22, 2015 Report Share Posted November 22, 2015 perhaps it would be more important to have an upper age limit such as 67 . ie. in employment and not retired. The young ones seemed far more sensible in the referendum, for instance. Itchyfeet 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 Hey Rasmie, leave my vote alone!. No reason for older people not to keep the vote unless they have lost their marbles in which case I would agree. What has retirement to do with it?. Acid 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjasga Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 This is about 16-17 year olds getting the vote. In theory they should have a say in their own personal future. Nothing wrong with that, but these are troubled times and whatever the situation may be, giving them the vote at such an early age is not a wise move. There's currently a terrorist war going on. The issues are far too complicated and far reaching to involve inexperienced 16 year olds who would not fully understand what's going on or problem solving on a national scale. Giving them the vote is asking them to take a hand in deciding a course of action. That is correct, yes. Those in favour of giving them a vote trust them to contribute to the discussion in a thoughtful manner. The handy thing with letting young people get involved is often that they remind older generations that they haven't always thought the way they now do. People generally become less idealistic with age, so to take up your example of terrorism, the general trend is I expect for older generations to be more in favour of military intervention. Is that to say the less idealistic choice is necessarily the most pragmatic? In that particular example I'm far from convinced. I'd suggest that having younger voices around to remind us of the long term implications of such a move is imperative to a fair democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 This is about 16-17 year olds getting the vote. In theory they should have a say in their own personal future. Nothing wrong with that, but these are troubled times and whatever the situation may be, giving them the vote at such an early age is not a wise move. There's currently a terrorist war going on. The issues are far too complicated and far reaching to involve inexperienced 16 year olds who would not fully understand what's going on or problem solving on a national scale. Giving them the vote is asking them to take a hand in deciding a course of action. That is correct, yes. Those in favour of giving them a vote trust them to contribute to the discussion in a thoughtful manner. The handy thing with letting young people get involved is often that they remind older generations that they haven't always thought the way they now do. People generally become less idealistic with age, so to take up your example of terrorism, the general trend is I expect for older generations to be more in favour of military intervention. Is that to say the less idealistic choice is necessarily the most pragmatic? In that particular example I'm far from convinced. I'd suggest that having younger voices around to remind us of the long term implications of such a move is imperative to a fair democracy. Except that I didn't say any of the stuff you quoted... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjasga Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 You must have deleted the quote tags as it just appears as your own post. I did think there was a sudden and peculiar change in the tone. It still stands as a response to Peter of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now