Making the news today....

[Johnsond]

35 minutes ago, Mark J said:

I reckon that if 16 year olds were given the right to vote they'd vote Green as younger people tend to look to the future whereas older people tend to want to make their present more comfortable. They would have gone with Corbyn but that version of Labour is long gone.

I also reckon that the powers that be will stifle anything that might upset their position, so during this election and beyond, I expect a filthy online war full of targeted ads to the susceptible, and things will turn out exactly as they are supposed to. Cambridge Analytica are one of many.

Easy mark you will be branded a conspiracy theorist at this rate. 

[monkeybusiness]

I can’t see any reason to withhold the vote from people who can legally breed/smoke/drive - surely their say is relevant?

It might focus the minds of politicians to set out (and hopefully deliver) longer term manifestos, instead of only looking to the next election.
It is impossible to implement any radical (or even non-radical but sensible) policies because of the way politics works in this country, so we end up mired in bureaucratic nonsense with problems getting worse but nothing being done about it because of quangos, political correctness, and parliamentary one-upmanship. 
There are millions of 18+ people in this country who probably shouldn’t be allowed to leave the house on their own, never mind have a say in deciding how the rest of us are governed. We do need to accept their thoughts on who runs the country though, even if they only take take take and never pay taxes….

[Mesterh]

IMO it should be 18 before you can do all the things discussed above. There is a huge difference between the level of maturity of a 16 year old compare to that of an 18 year old. Thats in regards to marriage, sex driving etc, the working part is a bit different. Im a bit torn as I think 16 year olds should be able to go to work and earn some coin but I think that if you can work and pay tax at 16 then you should have vote on how those tax dollars get spent/spunked up the wall etc.

 

 

 

 

[Steven P]

1 hour ago, Johnsond said:

Wrong 

 

Sign up at 16, in a general election year, you sign up for 6? years. After 5 years (and 25 days)(max time between elections), at the next general election you could have been in active duty for 3 years and have had no say in the politics that sent you there.

[Johnsond]

11 minutes ago, Steven P said:

 

Sign up at 16, in a general election year, you sign up for 6? years. After 5 years (and 25 days)(max time between elections), at the next general election you could have been in active duty for 3 years and have had no say in the politics that sent you there.

Then don’t join the armed forces 🤷‍♂️.

You mean on active service I take it ? 
I can assure you the first tour I did in NI as an 18-19 year old the last thing i gave a shit about was voting in any election. 
Just had a quick look at the stats for 16-17yr olds in the armed forces various figures between 1000-1700 🤔like Starmer really gives a toss. 

Edited May 25 by Johnsond

[Steven P]

Just an opinion on the ages, people mature at different rates, some 16 year olds are with it enough to hold down a job, raise a family, be a constructive member of society and contribute. Some 60 year olds still want looking after, it is how we are.

 

Not sure paying taxes, the amount of tax or education state should be a limit to voting - that would exclude a lot of 'grown ups' too. Likewise with the other metrics mentioned above, if you say "You are young and don't contribute enough' (jobs, education, voluntary works, armed forces, families and so on) then you have to apply that to anyone older too - fair and even for all. Not sure that is a society that is good "You - you are unemployed, and take take take, so you cannot have a say" type of thing.

 

 

 

 

[dan blocker]

2 hours ago, Mark J said:

How come people are legally allowed to breed at 16, but aren't deemed mature enough to to vote at that age? 

 

Yes you could. And then go on to be the deputy leader of the Labour Party🤔

[peds]

1 hour ago, Johnsond said:

Easy mark you will be branded a conspiracy theorist at this rate. 

There is nothing even remotely controversial or conspiratorial about what he has written. 

[sime42]

Nevermind 16 year olds, GB News and the other mouthpieces of Sir Paul Marshall have the potential for a far greater detrimental effect on UK democracy. The guy goes to the same evangelical church in the borough of  Kensington and Chelsea as Russell Brand for heavens sake. He also owns UnHerd and very soon the Telegraph, if he gets his way. Move aside Murdoch. God help us!

 

 

[Johnsond]

3 hours ago, sime42 said:

Nevermind 16 year olds, GB News and the other mouthpieces of Sir Paul Marshall have the potential for a far greater detrimental effect on UK democracy. The guy goes to the same evangelical church in the borough of  Kensington and Chelsea as Russell Brand for heavens sake. He also owns UnHerd and very soon the Telegraph, if he gets his way. Move aside Murdoch. God help us!

 

 

There’s a good lead in, talking of Mr Brand, anyone any idea how’s the investigation going or if he’s actually been charged with anything?. 

Edited May 26 by Johnsond