Best Of

Was allowing 16 year olds to vote (whilst they are still in education) a Labour manifesto item

Not nearly young enough.

They should have reduced it to 0 as anyone dumb enough to vote for this shower needs to have born yesterday.

That’s the problem - I suspect a lot of 16 year olds are going to vote reform because hey what has the current lot done for my older mates

I've shifted to a position where I don't necessarily object to giving 16 year olds the vote. But if we do, we also have to treat them like adults in other respects - allow them to drink, smoke and leave school. To say 'you're not old enough to have adult rights' but also 'you're old enough to come to an informed view about how the country should be governed' seems the wrong way around.

See one of my patented Viewcode's Rants©, namely "There should be a distinct border between childhood and adulthood - a bright shining line - and attempts to blur this usually end unhappily"

I'm fine with the blur. I'm fine with 16 year olds being able to vote but not get into debt. The two things are quite distinct. One is participating in democracy which doesn't really make much difference to the individual. The other is about protecting them from the big bad world.

Where I have an issue, however, is how we treat them in the criminal justice system. If they can vote, they can be named like everyone else.

I think we just call them Blur, not The Blur.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag

Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.

If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?

Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.

If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.

IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.

They were engaging in terrorism.

They did millions of pounds worth of damage to military planes as part of an organised campaign of violence to further political ends.

Its not absurd to proscribe them for being terrorists when they are terrorists.

Don't proscribe terrorist organisations is the alternative, but you don't get to cherrypick which terrorists are cuddly.

Criminal damage/ direct action is distinct from terrorism. I sat down in the middle of the road to protest the Iraq war. Does that make me a terrorist?

No it isn't, not if the damage is serious enough. Doing millions of pounds of damage is terrorism, pure and simple.

"Direct action" is too often a cuddly phrase for violence and terrorism. Peaceful protest does not give you the right to inflict violence upon others.

Would blowing up a building while it is empty of people, which potentially would cause less damage than what PA did, be terrorism in your eyes?

If so, what's the difference?

The phrase used is, "non-violent direct action."

It specifically excludes the use of violence.

What PA did was violent, so is not non-violent.

By the Law of the Excluded Middle.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag

Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.

If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?

Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.

If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.

IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.

Tens of millions? You might be surprised by the population as a whole. Most Brits don't like terrorists. Israel has undoubtedly gone too far, for too long, but I still think most Brits would disagree with you

Palestine Action are among Putin's little helpers. Proscribing them is like proscribing the BUF in 1940.

Was allowing 16 year olds to vote (whilst they are still in education) a Labour manifesto item

Yes.

It is worth rememberingon a point of pedantry that most 18 year olds are still in education too.

Arguably, we should have been considering raising the voting age.

As Willy Bridgman pointed out to Baldwin in 1925, whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue that isn’t possible. It is politically suicidal to take away votes from those who have them as it will cause fury (and did, when conscientious objectors were temporarily disenfranchised in 1918).

That doesn’t mean we should look at lowering it further. Personally I think it’s a bad idea, but this move is not about that, of course, it’s about whether they will support Labour. I think Starmer and Rayner are being optimistic in assuming they will but that’s rather typical of their ham-fisted approach to politics.

If you were going to raise it, you do it in the same way that smoking is being banned.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag

Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.

If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?

Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.

If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.

Can you have terrorism without terror? Not all enemies of the state are terrorists.

This is the definition

1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000

And as the Wikipedia article states

Sections (2)(b) and (e) have been criticised[5] as falling well outside the scope of what is generally understood to be the definition of terrorism, i.e. acts that require life-threatening violence.

Under that definition, a picket line outside a hospital, or indeed a doctors' strike, constitutes terrorism.

Basically, any political campaign the government of the day dislikes can be deemed terrorism. It's an abomination. Watching PB's leading libertarian trying to defend it is top notch entertainment, though.

The act is missing some sort of motivation clause around actually terrorising people.

Chopping a ULEZ camera down is criminal damage and politically motivated, but it doesn't make me fear for my life or imply that the choppers might kill me later in the same way.

Criminal damage already has a 10 year max sentence. That's sufficient, imo, as long as we make it clear politically aggravated activity will push the sentence up.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag

Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.

If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?

Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.

If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.

Can you have terrorism without terror? Not all enemies of the state are terrorists.

This is the definition

1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000

And as the Wikipedia article states

Sections (2)(b) and (e) have been criticised[5] as falling well outside the scope of what is generally understood to be the definition of terrorism, i.e. acts that require life-threatening violence.

Under that definition, a picket line outside a hospital, or indeed a doctors' strike, constitutes terrorism.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/17/armed-police-threatened-to-arrest-kent-protester-for-holding-palestinian-flag

Utterly dystopian and completely predictable outcome of the absurd decision to proscribe Palestine Action.

If Palestine Action didn't want to be proscribed for being a terrorist organisation, then maybe they shouldn't have engaged in terrorism?

Though I can understand why people who don't have an issue with terrorism align with the Palestinians and oppose Israel so vehemently.

If you think proscribing terrorist organisations is wrong, because it violates free speech, then argue that . . . but there's no unique reason why PA's terrorism should be exempt from the law.

IMHO proscribing a political organization is an extreme curb on free speech and freedom of association that can be justified only in the most extreme of circumstances. The direct action tactics of PA (which already constituted criminal offences that could and should have been prosecuted) are in my opinion several rungs below that high bar. Moreover, by criminalising an organization whose basic views are shared by tens of millions of people, you risk a chilling effect on legitimate protest, as we are seeing now.

They were engaging in terrorism.

They did millions of pounds worth of damage to military planes as part of an organised campaign of violence to further political ends.

Its not absurd to proscribe them for being terrorists when they are terrorists.

Don't proscribe terrorist organisations is the alternative, but you don't get to cherrypick which terrorists are cuddly.

Criminal damage/ direct action is distinct from terrorism. I sat down in the middle of the road to protest the Iraq war. Does that make me a terrorist?

No it isn't, not if the damage is serious enough. Doing millions of pounds of damage is terrorism, pure and simple.

"Direct action" is too often a cuddly phrase for violence and terrorism. Peaceful protest does not give you the right to inflict violence upon others.

Would blowing up a building while it is empty of people, which potentially would cause less damage than what PA did, be terrorism in your eyes?

If so, what's the difference?

Terrorism requires terror. Damaging a military aeroplane is criminal damage. It could arguably be treason. But it's not terrorism. Blowing up a building even if empty carries with it a threat to blow up a building with people inside and so would constitute terrorism. The difference between direct action and terrorism is lethal violence or the threat thereof. Destroying a speed camera is not terrorism. Damaging a military plane is not terrorism. The path we are going down now is absurd, it robs words of their real meanings. Palestine Action is not a terrorist organisation. (Am I even allowed to say that? What an absurd world we are living in).

IANAL, but AIUI you are allowed to express the opinion that Palestine Action is not a terrorist organisation. That is not support for Palestine Action, which would be illegal.

Terrorism has always been a slippery term.

The last significant extension to the franchise was in 1969 when those aged 18-21 got the vote though there have been other changes since such as giving UK citizens living abroad the vote in the 1980s.

Roy Jenkins said one of the reasons why he thought the Conservatives did so well in the 1970 election (at 46%, a higher vote share than any party has achieved since) was the number of young women who followed their mothers and voted Conservative.

Not sure there is huge empirical evidence for this but just a thought extending the franchise doesn’t always work our as you might think.

I will go to my grave convinced that a significant factor in both the Labour loss in 1970 and the Conservative loss in February 1974 was Enoch Powell. Most certainly not any football matches.

Given the catastrophic economic circumstances of 1974 (which the current government seems to be doing its best to replicate in many ways) the 1974 elections are better considered as moral victories for the Conservatives.

Which is bizarre considering what an uncharismatic and incompetent politician Ted Heath was.