Joy_Division_Oven_Gloves
Well-known member
I’d trust my 16 year old to make an informed choiceBecause you were thick doesn’t make it a reason not to give 16 year olds the vote.
I’d trust my 16 year old to make an informed choiceBecause you were thick doesn’t make it a reason not to give 16 year olds the vote.
There would undoubtedly be 16 year olds who would make very informed political decisions. The vast majority of 16 year olds wouldn't have a clue though.I’d trust my 16 year old to make an informed choice
You can say that about 18 year olds too.There would undoubtedly be 16 year olds who would make very informed political decisions. The vast majority of 16 year olds wouldn't have a clue though.
That would be true of every age group if they had to pass a 'politics test'.There would undoubtedly be 16 year olds who would make very informed political decisions. The vast majority of 16 year olds wouldn't have a clue though.
Ok, no under 18's voting if there's no over 65's voting, or people who are retired, and their pensions get locked so nobody can mess with (or improve) them?There would undoubtedly be 16 year olds who would make very informed political decisions. The vast majority of 16 year olds wouldn't have a clue though.
All true. You are right that most 16 year olds probably wouldn't bother, in which case those who were more informed/engaged would be voting in the main.You can say that about 18 year olds too.
But voting isn't compulsory and those with little interest in politics wouldn't bother.
Lots of countries are lowering the age to 16 as Wales and Scotland have
Aye - all valid points too.That would be true of every age group if they had to pass a 'politics test'.
I was impressed with the young people who were interviewed in Wales and Scotland concerning the issues that were important to them. Currently, the political narrative isn't particularly involving for young people's issues. That would change if the voting age was lowered.
Exactly, rather than someone as Billy Connelly says “who’s tongue comes out to meet the spoon” making life affecting decisions for them.I’d trust my 16 year old to make an informed choice
By killing thousands and not attending cobra meetings? You don't handle a crisis by ignoring it.Hard to get an instant success from Teesside Airport when Covid has hit international and national flights.
At least he's carrying out what his mayoral election manifesto said he would.
Boris has had the most difficult start to any elected PM with Covid and Brexit to manage and whilst not being done to perfection this has been delivered.
Same is true of the people of Hartlepool it seems to meI agree about the voting age being 16 and of course most will be politically naive. However, the same is true of 18 year olds by and large. The younger people become engaged the sooner they'll develop their views.
Wouldn't an old codger like me like a say in health care , care for the elderly or a future for my grandson or a better life for all ?Ok, no under 18's voting if there's no over 65's voting, or people who are retired, and their pensions get locked so nobody can mess with (or improve) them?
I would happily give up my vote at 65, it would have next to zero impact on my past or future life. I would see it as one 30-year-olds vote is more important than five of mine, if I was say 70, 80, 90 etc.
The vast majority of over 65's don't know what's good for the future of the UK, I say UK as the majority of them pretty much voted to break it up. Older folk get tied to the past, and have opinions grounded on history, whereas the now and the future is much more relevant.
The over 65's don't even have to work through it, or live with its future, or live with their choices. Why should they get a say, and a 16 year old not? If the 16 year old doesn't care, they just won't vote, an over 65 will probably vote no mater what, and because they don't have to work, already have a house, have no risk it basically has zero relevance on them.
I would trust the average educated 16 year old to make a more informed, relevant and "all inclusive" choice, rather than some old folk whose opinions were formed 40-50 years ago when the world was very different.
Old enough to work to old enough to get a pension, would be my choice, anyone outside that does not have the experience or future relevance.
Apparently not according to some !!!Wouldn't an old codger like me like a say in health care , care for the elderly or a future for my grandson or a better life for all ?
I see what you're saying, but why? You would have had 47 years of an opinion, shaping the direction. The older people get the less they prioritise welfare, fair taxes, a fair system, a modern system etc. Basically you might want "good things", but not all will.Wouldn't an old codger like me like a say in health care , care for the elderly or a future for my grandson or a better life for all ?
After 47years of paying tax I’d like my acquired wisdom applied in a democratic way to how its spent.I see what you're saying, but why? You would have had 47 years of an opinion, shaping the direction. The older people get the less they prioritise welfare, fair taxes, a fair system, a modern system etc. Basically you might want "good things", but not all will.
The views of those who work in healthcare, or those currently paying for it, would be more important, and those 30-65 would be obviously very heavy on ensuring healthcare is better, seeing as they're working in it, partners work in it or they need it for their kids. The younger generations are more in support of better social healthcare, as a percentage, thank older folk. Effectively the 18-65's would protect healthcare more than the over 65's would.
Why can't your son/ daughter have more of a say in their childs life? Their opinion is worth twice yours? An 18-year-old or 30 year old is still your grandson, their opinion on their life is worth twice that of their parents etc. It's more common for peoples grandparents (on average) to be voting against the wishes of younger folk (on average), their opinions are worlds apart, effectively unwelcome, more than they are welcome?
Your "tax" has already been spent, there is no massive pot of tax savings paying for HS2 or whatever. In fact it's overspent and now in masses of debt, having to be bailed out by the younger folk, who are typically stuck with buying houses which are 15x their yearly salary, and have no property boom to look forward to (as there's a low birth rate). Don't worry, your (and my) pension is already invested and locked away, I'm not saying take away any protections, and younger folk would not vote to take away protecting their own future and famililes.After 47years of paying tax I’d like my acquired wisdom applied in a democratic way to how its spent.
It's not that I don't agree with it, it's more that it's not relevant, regardless of what that opinion is. It becomes less and less relevant every year, as the majority of people are no longer paying for/ part of the main system. They have their own opinion and will have had 47 years of their own opinion, and now why do they need a say on a system if they're not paying into it, or having to live with the main implications of their future decisions?You can't stop retirees voting because you don't agree with their opinion. Older people are making up more and more of the world demographic so 50 years ago it had less impact in an election than it does today. That's life. The less poeple, generally, that are disenfranchised the better the electoral decisions. It would be much more beneficial to educated people about politics so they understand the importance of their vote and the suffering that has been endured to give them that right. If everyone voted you would get a much fairer representative parliament even with fptp.