Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[chenks]

but you didn't qualify why you think 21 would be the correct age.
it's just as sensible to suggest 21 as my suggestion of excluding 80+.

maybe we should also exclude women, the unemployed, the lower classes, and anyone who isn't white.

the minute you start to try and restrict who can vote then you degrade "democracy" and turn it into a "old boys club".

[sevenlayermuddle]

but you didn't qualify why you think 21 would be the correct age.

It was just an opinion, am I not entitled to one?   Especially as I followed with a recognition that it may not be entirely rational?

As regards fighting in the army at age 16, I believe that to be a myth.  You can join the armed forces, but you won’t be sent into combat.

[Ronski]

I also agree that the age for voting should not be reduced, if my children and their friends are anything to go by then they just get taken in by all the promises which us older generation through experience know are all mostly going to be broken, or simply cost too much or have other more severe implications.

By the way a 16 or 17 year old can not fight in a war, the legal age a soldier can be sent to a combat zone is 18, it is a myth that a 16 year old is allowed to fight spread by labour, who want the age lowered as they know how gullible youngsters can be -  just look at what happened in Canterbury due to the massive student population in the last election.

[broadstairs]

IMO i'd remove the vote from anyone over the age of 80.
if the likelood of you not living long enough for the term of government to expire than you lose the right to have a say in how the country is run.
and 80 is a reasonable age to limit that to.

Now that is something I'd totally disagree with!

Stuart

[sevenlayermuddle]

By the way a 16 or 17 year old can not fight in a war, the legal age a soldier can be sent to a combat zone is 18, it is a myth that a 16 year old is allowed to fight

Most relevant to that is my father’s generation.   As I approached 18, main thing I looked forwards to was being able to order a beer legally, having sneaked in the occasional illegal drink at the students’ union bar.

Dad, in contrast, turned 18 in 1943.   He knew as I did what was coming, but in his case it wasn’t beer.  He got conscripted,  training for invasion of Europe, subsequently landing on a Normandy beach on D-Day, seeing many of his friends slaughtered.   Just doesn’t bear thinking about really, does it? 

I’ve met other D-Day veterans who had heart-warming and sometimes heroic stories to tell.   Not a single one has complained that “we weren’t allowed to vote”.

[digbey]

IMO i'd remove the vote from anyone over the age of 80.

you can't take tax off someone who isn't allowed to vote, as they are essentially paying into the country but having no say in it.

As someone over 80, I'm warming to this idea. Will this apply to all tax? Income tax, VAT, Inheritance tax etc?

[gt94sss2]

you can't take tax off someone who isn't allowed to vote, as they are essentially paying into the country but having no say in it.

Erm.. it’s a common misconception but taxes actually apply regardless of age. So a 1 year old needs to pay tax if they are fortunate to have enough income.. and also benefits from the same personal tax free allowance as an adult.

[dee.jay]

I think voting should remain at 18. That is when you are legally classed as an adult. One must draw a line somewhere. It was also laughable how parties suddenly wanted to move to get the vote for 16/17 year olds for this election. Another ploy to get the kids to vote for all the freebies!

[chenks]

personally i would trust 16/17yos to vote more than some of the utter morons that are "adults" to vote.
if the colour of a passport (that they probably don't even have) is their prime motivation in a vote then they should have their voting privelidge removed.

[dee.jay]

If people want to vote simply on that basis, that is their democratic right to do so.

[sevenlayermuddle]

It does indeed seem that there is no logical reason to reduce the voting age.   That suggests that those in favour of doing so are either

A) acting on personal opinions.   Nothing wrong with that, but legislators imho should ask for more than personal opinions, before enacting new laws.

Or...

B) acting upon some theory that lowering the age will affect the electoral outcome,  in a way that favours their own political stance.   That one is a bit disturbing, because the legislators making the judgement could easily be the ones who stand to gain...   

[Ronski]

I think B is the reason some want it approved, just like some of the more recent laws designed to stop Brexit.

[dee.jay]

It absolutely was to try and stop Brexit. We're trying to get Brexit done, yet they wanted to try and rush through legislation to allow 16/17 year olds the vote?

[sevenlayermuddle]

Trouble is, whilst allowing children to vote might be momentarily beneficial to those in favour of some particular cause, we’d likely be stuck with it for evermore, as likely to backfire on one party as much as the other.

Precedent being set, it’d be very hard to restrict the vote to adults against in future.   Might even only be achievable by a referendum.   Everybody ready for that?

[Ronski]

No more referendums!

Although if the wrong party wins the election I think we should have another election