Isam: Tower Hamlets UKIP were due to select their candidates for both Poplar & Limehouse and Bethnal Green & Bow a few days ago, but I can't find any information online. Do you know who was selected for the constituencies?
The furious opposition to votes at 16 among many on here is one of the most baffling themes ever on PB.
It's almost like some of them considered the choosing of the next government an important and serious matter! Silly fools! Everyone knows that it's just some flippant thing and the vote should be handed out to foreigners and kids to do. Stuff like the secret ballot doesn't matter - we should just allow people to add it to the end of their X factor voting texts!
It's up to Scots who votes in Scottish elections. Is there any evidence that 16 year olds voted flippantly in September or without engaging in the debate? Before 1969 you had to be 21 to vote. Times change.
Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?
Good lord no - If the voting age is to be introduced for 16 year olds, then it must apply to all 16 year olds equally, irrespective of an arbitrary criteria such as the number of GCSE gained. – that was is just a slippery slope for all sorts of 'future' nonsense imho.
The furious opposition to votes at 16 among many on here is one of the most baffling themes ever on PB.
It's almost like some of them considered the choosing of the next government an important and serious matter! Silly fools! Everyone knows that it's just some flippant thing and the vote should be handed out to foreigners and kids to do. Stuff like the secret ballot doesn't matter - we should just allow people to add it to the end of their X factor voting texts!
Suffice to say my 16 year old daughter took voting in the referendum very seriously and did lots of her own research before deciding how to vote. I've just let my her have a look through the thread, she just wanted to let you guy's know that she is deeply offended by some of the ridiculous comments coming from supposed "grown adults".
I think the inclusion of 16/17 year olds in the referendum was a successful experiment in improving our democracy. My daughter and many of her friends having shown no previous interest in politics, are now very engaged and I expect will do so for the rest of their lives. She had been thinking about joining the SNP - I think this might help her make up her mind !!
The furious opposition to votes at 16 among many on here is one of the most baffling themes ever on PB.
It's all perspective @Bobajob. When I was 16 I thought I knew everything and how I wanted the vote. It turns out that I knew nothing worth knowing and with respect that would be the position todays 16 year olds would find themselves in.
But perhaps your 16-year-old self was right and your present self is mistaken? How do you know?
Isam: Tower Hamlets UKIP were due to select their candidates for both Poplar & Limehouse and Bethnal Green & Bow a few days ago, but I can't find any information online. Do you know who was selected for the constituencies?
I will try and find out, but I wouldn't be surprised if no one put their hand up... I know I didn't consider either for a moment, and they are two of the closest available to me
Danny - sadly those figures are no doubt born of pure ignorance. Most of the public have no grasp of what deficit means, thinking it in fact means national debt.
I wouldn't say ignorance so much as disinterest. It's never seemed very obvious to the "man on the street" why they should care about what some balance sheets say.
I still think the only reason people ever even grudgingly accepted the need for austerity was not because of the level of the UK's deficit itself, it was because it coincided with the Euro debt crisis -- that gave what looked like a very vivid example of the consequences of what could happen to us if we didn't "do something". But since the news has long since stopped being full of news about the markets turning on countries with high deficits, it's no longer clear why there's a need to cut spending no matter how high the deficit remains on paper.
Mr. 565, you repeatedly post on this same subject and are repeatedly told that in this vale of tears nobody will lend money without getting something back in return - it is called interest. The more one borrows the more one has to pay in interest. As Mr. Ghost has pointed out the UK is currently paying £40bn a year just in interest payments, and that will over the next few years increase to more than £60 billion a year even at best estimates.
Now, please, before you again post that it would be a good idea for HMG to borrow even more than it does already, please, please explain what you think the long term effects of such borrowing will be.
Mr Llama, reading you post made me wonder how Moslem countries, who are forbidden to pay or charge interest manage on global markets. I realise that Saudi Arabia probably doesn't have a problem, but not all Moslem countries have that amount of natural resources
Isam: Tower Hamlets UKIP were due to select their candidates for both Poplar & Limehouse and Bethnal Green & Bow a few days ago, but I can't find any information online. Do you know who was selected for the constituencies?
I will try and find out, but I wouldn't be surprised if no one put their hand up... I know I didn't consider either for a moment, and they are two of the closest available to me
Because of the threat of intimidation from certain quarters in the borough?
As I understand it there are no such proposals on the table to let 15 yrs and 364 day olds vote. Reminds me of the bullshit when gay marriage was proposed: "what about letting dogs marry?"
Well I could or could not be in favour of canine weddings, but as no party with any chance of power had proposed the measure it would have been impolite to filibuster the thread by raising it.
Danny - sadly those figures are no doubt born of pure ignorance. Most of the public have no grasp of what deficit means, thinking it in fact means national debt.
I wouldn't say ignorance so much as disinterest. It's never seemed very obvious to the "man on the street" why they should care about what some balance sheets say.
I still think the only reason people ever even grudgingly accepted the need for austerity was not because of the level of the UK's deficit itself, it was because it coincided with the Euro debt crisis -- that gave what looked like a very vivid example of the consequences of what could happen to us if we didn't "do something". But since the news has long since stopped being full of news about the markets turning on countries with high deficits, it's no longer clear why there's a need to cut spending no matter how high the deficit remains on paper.
Mr. 565, you repeatedly post on this same subject and are repeatedly told that in this vale of tears nobody will lend money without getting something back in return - it is called interest. The more one borrows the more one has to pay in interest. As Mr. Ghost has pointed out the UK is currently paying £40bn a year just in interest payments, and that will over the next few years increase to more than £60 billion a year even at best estimates.
Now, please, before you again post that it would be a good idea for HMG to borrow even more than it does already, please, please explain what you think the long term effects of such borrowing will be.
Mr Llama, reading you post made me wonder how Moslem countries, who are forbidden to pay or charge interest manage on global markets. I realise that Saudi Arabia probably doesn't have a problem, but not all Moslem countries have that amount of natural resources
How, by the way, is your neighbour doing?
I think the attitude of Muslim Governments and some Muslims to interest depends on circumstance. Rather similar to their attitude to booze and lots of other "forbidden" things (try flying first class from Saudi to London).
My neighbour is still very poorly and not likely to get any better but thanks for the info you sent yesterday, I have passed it on.
Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?
Or weight vote by IQ ?
Perhaps have votes proportional to how much tax you paid in the previous year?
Or perhaps let everyone aged 16 and over vote.
But why 16, Mr. Observer? Surely you are just shifting an arbitrary cut off. So what makes 16 the right age? Why not something younger?
Indeed. But 16 is the age that was decided upon. And there is no evidence, as far as I know, that shows those who exercised their new found right did so with anything other than full attention. Maybe it will go lower at some point.
Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?
Or weight vote by IQ ?
Perhaps have votes proportional to how much tax you paid in the previous year?
Or perhaps let everyone aged 16 and over vote.
But why 16, Mr. Observer? Surely you are just shifting an arbitrary cut off. So what makes 16 the right age? Why not something younger?
Indeed. But 16 is the age that was decided upon. And there is no evidence, as far as I know, that shows those who exercised their new found right did so with anything other than full attention. Maybe it will go lower at some point.
There is no evidence that 14 year olds would be any less diligent. Or 12 year olds or 8 years olds or babes in arms. So why do you think that 16 years is the right cut-off?
Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?
Or weight vote by IQ ?
Perhaps have votes proportional to how much tax you paid in the previous year?
Or perhaps let everyone aged 16 and over vote.
But why 16, Mr. Observer? Surely you are just shifting an arbitrary cut off. So what makes 16 the right age? Why not something younger?
Indeed. But 16 is the age that was decided upon. And there is no evidence, as far as I know, that shows those who exercised their new found right did so with anything other than full attention. Maybe it will go lower at some point.
There is no evidence that 14 year olds would be any less diligent. Or 12 year olds or 8 years olds or babes in arms. So why do you think that 16 years is the right cut-off?
it's no longer clear why there's a need to cut spending no matter how high the deficit remains on paper.
If you are still having difficulty with the concept consider the cuts that would have to be imposed once noone is prepared to lend you any more money to pay for benefits or public services.
Except "the bond markets" can't lend us money quickly enough even now when we still have a deficit.
Danny - sadly those figures are no doubt born of pure ignorance. Most of the public have no grasp of what deficit means, thinking it in fact means national debt.
I wouldn't say ignorance so much as disinterest. It's never seemed very obvious to the "man on the street" why they should care about what some balance sheets say.
I still think the only reason people ever even grudgingly accepted the need for austerity was not because of the level of the UK's deficit itself, it was because it coincided with the Euro debt crisis -- that gave what looked like a very vivid example of the consequences of what could happen to us if we didn't "do something". But since the news has long since stopped being full of news about the markets turning on countries with high deficits, it's no longer clear why there's a need to cut spending no matter how high the deficit remains on paper.
Mr. 565, you repeatedly post on this same subject and are repeatedly told that in this vale of tears nobody will lend money without getting something back in return - it is called interest. The more one borrows the more one has to pay in interest. As Mr. Ghost has pointed out the UK is currently paying £40bn a year just in interest payments, and that will over the next few years increase to more than £60 billion a year even at best estimates.
Now, please, before you again post that it would be a good idea for HMG to borrow even more than it does already, please, please explain what you think the long term effects of such borrowing will be.
Mr Llama, reading you post made me wonder how Moslem countries, who are forbidden to pay or charge interest manage on global markets. I realise that Saudi Arabia probably doesn't have a problem, but not all Moslem countries have that amount of natural resources
How, by the way, is your neighbour doing?
I think the attitude of Muslim Governments and some Muslims to interest depends on circumstance. Rather similar to their attitude to booze and lots of other "forbidden" things (try flying first class from Saudi to London).
My neighbour is still very poorly and not likely to get any better but thanks for the info you sent yesterday, I have passed it on.
It's not only first class, Mr Llama. What did for me, on a Gulf Airline was the icon, in the thing which tells you where you are etc, in front of our seat which always pointed to Mecca. Went berserk, spinning round and round, when we came into land at Hong Kong!
Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?
Or weight vote by IQ ?
Perhaps have votes proportional to how much tax you paid in the previous year?
Or perhaps let everyone aged 16 and over vote.
But why 16, Mr. Observer? Surely you are just shifting an arbitrary cut off. So what makes 16 the right age? Why not something younger?
Indeed. But 16 is the age that was decided upon. And there is no evidence, as far as I know, that shows those who exercised their new found right did so with anything other than full attention. Maybe it will go lower at some point.
It is incumbent on the people who are advocating lowering the voting age to make the case for it. Not to say "we've decided to do it lower and it's everyone else that has to justify keeping it at the same age".
Danny - sadly those figures are no doubt born of pure ignorance. Most of the public have no grasp of what deficit means, thinking it in fact means national debt.
I wouldn't say ignorance so much as disinterest. It's never seemed very obvious to the "man on the street" why they should care about what some balance sheets say.
I still think the only reason people ever even grudgingly accepted the need for austerity was not because of the level of the UK's deficit itself, it was because it coincided with the Euro debt crisis -- that gave what looked like a very vivid example of the consequences of what could happen to us if we didn't "do something". But since the news has long since stopped being full of news about the markets turning on countries with high deficits, it's no longer clear why there's a need to cut spending no matter how high the deficit remains on paper.
Mr. 565, you repeatedly post on this same subject and are repeatedly told that in this vale of tears nobody will lend money without getting something back in return - it is called interest. The more one borrows the more one has to pay in interest. As Mr. Ghost has pointed out the UK is currently paying £40bn a year just in interest payments, and that will over the next few years increase to more than £60 billion a year even at best estimates.
Now, please, before you again post that it would be a good idea for HMG to borrow even more than it does already, please, please explain what you think the long term effects of such borrowing will be.
I don't get this thing Dan has with not paying the money back - I think he wants us to default, which itself isn't wholly beyond the realms of possibility, but would entail no more borrowing for the UK, so a permanent end to credit card socialism, which I don't think he does want.
Well Hurst there is certainly evidence that babes in arms are less diligent than 16-year-olds as, with the exception of that 1-year-old who featured on the front page of the Sunday Sport after completing the Observer crossword, they cannot read.
Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?
Or weight vote by IQ ?
Perhaps have votes proportional to how much tax you paid in the previous year?
Or perhaps let everyone aged 16 and over vote.
But why 16, Mr. Observer? Surely you are just shifting an arbitrary cut off. So what makes 16 the right age? Why not something younger?
Indeed. But 16 is the age that was decided upon. And there is no evidence, as far as I know, that shows those who exercised their new found right did so with anything other than full attention. Maybe it will go lower at some point.
There is no evidence that 14 year olds would be any less diligent. Or 12 year olds or 8 years olds or babes in arms. So why do you think that 16 years is the right cut-off?
It is the age of consent, Mr Llama?
Consent for sex but not for marriage without the parents permission. As with all the other examples, the law effectively says that at 16 there are things you can do that we can't really do much about even if we wanted to but most things that require state approval and involve a larger degree of responsibility are prevented until you are 18. Marriage with parents permission, fighting for your country, driving, buying firearms, alcohol or cigarettes and of course voting - all have a minimum age of 18.
Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?
Good lord no - If the voting age is to be introduced for 16 year olds, then it must apply to all 16 year olds equally, irrespective of an arbitrary criteria such as the number of GCSE gained. – that was is just a slippery slope for all sorts of 'future' nonsense imho.
Some of the inane arguments raised on here against lowering the voting age to 16 on this and previous threads show a strong and valid case for removing voting rights from those who made them .
Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?
Or weight vote by IQ ?
Perhaps have votes proportional to how much tax you paid in the previous year?
Or perhaps let everyone aged 16 and over vote.
But why 16, Mr. Observer? Surely you are just shifting an arbitrary cut off. So what makes 16 the right age? Why not something younger?
Indeed. But 16 is the age that was decided upon. And there is no evidence, as far as I know, that shows those who exercised their new found right did so with anything other than full attention. Maybe it will go lower at some point.
There is no evidence that 14 year olds would be any less diligent. Or 12 year olds or 8 years olds or babes in arms. So why do you think that 16 years is the right cut-off?
Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?
Good lord no - If the voting age is to be introduced for 16 year olds, then it must apply to all 16 year olds equally, irrespective of an arbitrary criteria such as the number of GCSE gained. – that was is just a slippery slope for all sorts of 'future' nonsense imho.
Some of the inane arguments raised on here against lowering the voting age to 16 on this and previous threads show a strong and valid case for removing voting rights from those who made them .
It would appear that broadly speaking it's the left wingers here in favour, primarily as a way of swelling their flagging numbers of voting fodder with the fresh hordes of teenage socialists who've never paid a bill.
Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?
Good lord no - If the voting age is to be introduced for 16 year olds, then it must apply to all 16 year olds equally, irrespective of an arbitrary criteria such as the number of GCSE gained. – that was is just a slippery slope for all sorts of 'future' nonsense imho.
Some of the inane arguments raised on here against lowering the voting age to 16 on this and previous threads show a strong and valid case for removing voting rights from those who made them .
It would appear that broadly speaking it's the left wingers here in favour, primarily as a way of swelling their flagging numbers of voting fodder with the fresh hordes of teenage socialists who've never paid a bill.
Ms Fitalass would not be pleased to be described as a leftie! Her comments did impress me, as did Mr Calum's. I had been agnostic or mildly positive but am now duly converted.
Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?
Good lord no - If the voting age is to be introduced for 16 year olds, then it must apply to all 16 year olds equally, irrespective of an arbitrary criteria such as the number of GCSE gained. – that was is just a slippery slope for all sorts of 'future' nonsense imho.
Some of the inane arguments raised on here against lowering the voting age to 16 on this and previous threads show a strong and valid case for removing voting rights from those who made them .
It would appear that broadly speaking it's the left wingers here in favour, primarily as a way of swelling their flagging numbers of voting fodder with the fresh hordes of teenage socialists who've never paid a bill.
And as with all the major reforms throughout the 20th and 21st century it is right wingers opposed to any reform whatsoever .
Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?
Good lord no - If the voting age is to be introduced for 16 year olds, then it must apply to all 16 year olds equally, irrespective of an arbitrary criteria such as the number of GCSE gained. – that was is just a slippery slope for all sorts of 'future' nonsense imho.
Some of the inane arguments raised on here against lowering the voting age to 16 on this and previous threads show a strong and valid case for removing voting rights from those who made them .
It would appear that broadly speaking it's the left wingers here in favour, primarily as a way of swelling their flagging numbers of voting fodder with the fresh hordes of teenage socialists who've never paid a bill.
Plus a large number of potential Labour voters are 16 year olds at schools that will will teach them who to vote for and whose fathers already help their mothers "decide" how to vote in some parts of the country #110%turnout
Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?
Good lord no - If the voting age is to be introduced for 16 year olds, then it must apply to all 16 year olds equally, irrespective of an arbitrary criteria such as the number of GCSE gained. – that was is just a slippery slope for all sorts of 'future' nonsense imho.
Some of the inane arguments raised on here against lowering the voting age to 16 on this and previous threads show a strong and valid case for removing voting rights from those who made them .
It would appear that broadly speaking it's the left wingers here in favour, primarily as a way of swelling their flagging numbers of voting fodder with the fresh hordes of teenage socialists who've never paid a bill.
Ms Fitalass would not be pleased to be described as a leftie! Her comments did impress me, as did Mr Calum's. I had been agnostic or mildly positive but am now duly converted.
I also think DavidL would be surprised to be described as such. It seems that the rightwingers who have experience of votes at 16 have changed their view - which might be a salutary lesson about life experience and liberality in general...
Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?
Or weight vote by IQ ?
Perhaps have votes proportional to how much tax you paid in the previous year?
Or perhaps let everyone aged 16 and over vote.
But why 16, Mr. Observer? Surely you are just shifting an arbitrary cut off. So what makes 16 the right age? Why not something younger?
Indeed. But 16 is the age that was decided upon. And there is no evidence, as far as I know, that shows those who exercised their new found right did so with anything other than full attention. Maybe it will go lower at some point.
There is no evidence that 14 year olds would be any less diligent. Or 12 year olds or 8 years olds or babes in arms. So why do you think that 16 years is the right cut-off?
Isam: Tower Hamlets UKIP were due to select their candidates for both Poplar & Limehouse and Bethnal Green & Bow a few days ago, but I can't find any information online. Do you know who was selected for the constituencies?
UKIP are very careful. As you may know the candidate for South Basildon was selected but not announced for quite a few days. It was referred to UKIP HQ for approval first. After all UKIP wanted to make sure that they did not select an absolute crazed loon by mistake.
Mr. Calum, the debate about voting age isn't about your daughter, it's about the general notion of letting all 16-17 year olds vote. There are some 12 year olds who would take voting very seriously. That does not mean the law should be changed for everyone.
I'm puzzled as to why EVEL can apparently go through parliament toot suite but new powers for Scotland must wait 240,000,000 months before being introduced.
Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?
Good lord no - If the voting age is to be introduced for 16 year olds, then it must apply to all 16 year olds equally, irrespective of an arbitrary criteria such as the number of GCSE gained. – that was is just a slippery slope for all sorts of 'future' nonsense imho.
Some of the inane arguments raised on here against lowering the voting age to 16 on this and previous threads show a strong and valid case for removing voting rights from those who made them .
It would appear that broadly speaking it's the left wingers here in favour, primarily as a way of swelling their flagging numbers of voting fodder with the fresh hordes of teenage socialists who've never paid a bill.
And as with all the major reforms throughout the 20th and 21st century it is right wingers opposed to any reform whatsoever .
So that would be why the main Right Wing party had both the first Jewish PM and the first Woman PM?
Your inane and fatuous comments continue unabated I see.
The furious opposition to votes at 16 among many on here is one of the most baffling themes ever on PB.
It's all perspective @Bobajob. When I was 16 I thought I knew everything and how I wanted the vote. It turns out that I knew nothing worth knowing and with respect that would be the position todays 16 year olds would find themselves in.
But perhaps your 16-year-old self was right and your present self is mistaken? How do you know?
Sixth form, university, graduate school, service in HM Forces, fatherhood and 60 years life experience, perhaps?
But if you feel so strongly, Nick, perhaps you should step down in favour of a 16-year-old candidate in Broxtowe?
Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?
Or weight vote by IQ ?
Perhaps have votes proportional to how much tax you paid in the previous year?
Or perhaps let everyone aged 16 and over vote.
But why 16, Mr. Observer? Surely you are just shifting an arbitrary cut off. So what makes 16 the right age? Why not something younger?
Indeed. But 16 is the age that was decided upon. And there is no evidence, as far as I know, that shows those who exercised their new found right did so with anything other than full attention. Maybe it will go lower at some point.
There is no evidence that 14 year olds would be any less diligent. Or 12 year olds or 8 years olds or babes in arms. So why do you think that 16 years is the right cut-off?
It is the age of consent, Mr Llama?
Lower that then.
Why?
Why not.
OK, I can see where this is going so... I had hoped the jaundice in my remark may not have gone unnoticed. The starting remark by somebody said, given the lack of evidence why not lower it to 14. The ripost was that this 'was the age of consent' - another arbitrary age. So if that is the criterion then lower that if you want a lower voting age.
I can see that over time a sort of voting age arms race might arise and all parties might end up being pressurised to lower it. I hope it can be resisted and kept to the legal age of maturity, whatever that is set at.
I would contend that the only acceptable solution if we are to allow voting at 16 would be to also reduce the age of responsibility for all other acts both public and private. So that list I mentioned earlier should also be adjusted to 16 years of age. Buying cigarettes, alcohol and firearms, driving, marrying without parental consent, leaving education (which is just being raised to 18) and fighting for ones country should all be reduced to 16 as well by the same logic being applied here.
After all we are apparently claiming that young people are responsible enough to exercise one of the most important functions in society so why should we consider them too immature to have all the other responsibilities as well?
It is quite funny to watch the Labour Party, which if nothing else believes in equality above all else, and shouts it from the rooftops, turning intellectual contortions to try and prevent equality of legislative powers between constituent countries in the UK because it would disadvantage their party.
Local plodsters in Avon and Somerset are trying to run a name and shame policy, so are we to believe that all those charged with drink driving are automatically guilty?
Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?
Good lord no - If the voting age is to be introduced for 16 year olds, then it must apply to all 16 year olds equally, irrespective of an arbitrary criteria such as the number of GCSE gained. – that was is just a slippery slope for all sorts of 'future' nonsense imho.
Some of the inane arguments raised on here against lowering the voting age to 16 on this and previous threads show a strong and valid case for removing voting rights from those who made them .
It would appear that broadly speaking it's the left wingers here in favour, primarily as a way of swelling their flagging numbers of voting fodder with the fresh hordes of teenage socialists who've never paid a bill.
And as with all the major reforms throughout the 20th and 21st century it is right wingers opposed to any reform whatsoever .
So that would be why the main Right Wing party had both the first Jewish PM and the first Woman PM?
Your inane and fatuous comments continue unabated I see.
Mr D wasn't Jewish by religion, was he? Though I don't know whether Mr Gladstone, as a young man, clove to the Presbyterian rigour of his forebears.
Kerry Smith probably comes from a rougher part of Essex than I do, but I can imagine he is telling the truth here, and speaking for many people who others like to look down upon
("Mr Kerry?!")
"Speaking to The Telegraph Mr Kerry said: "I have every faith in Nigel [Farage, the Ukip leader] to resolve this. I think Nigel will make sure that the right person is put in Basildon and Thurrock for the right reasons. I'm working class, I am not politically correct and the language I used you would probably find on Del Boy.
"Let's be perfectly straight and honest about this, I am not politically correct. I am a bit rough around the edges, I am not going to deny that, I come from a council estate.
"It was never meant to offend. Where I grew up if you use PC words you got bashed." "
Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?
Or weight vote by IQ ?
Perhaps have votes proportional to how much tax you paid in the previous year?
Or perhaps let everyone aged 16 and over vote.
But why 16, Mr. Observer? Surely you are just shifting an arbitrary cut off. So what makes 16 the right age? Why not something younger?
Indeed. But 16 is the age that was decided upon. And there is no evidence, as far as I know, that shows those who exercised their new found right did so with anything other than full attention. Maybe it will go lower at some point.
There is no evidence that 14 year olds would be any less diligent. Or 12 year olds or 8 years olds or babes in arms. So why do you think that 16 years is the right cut-off?
It is the age of consent, Mr Llama?
Lower that then.
Why?
Why not.
OK, I can see where this is going so... I had hoped the jaundice in my remark may not have gone unnoticed. The starting remark by somebody said, given the lack of evidence why not lower it to 14. The ripost was that this 'was the age of consent' - another arbitrary age. So if that is the criterion then lower that if you want a lower voting age.
I can see that over time a sort of voting age arms race might arise and all parties might end up being pressurised to lower it. I hope it can be resisted and kept to the legal age of maturity, whatever that is set at.
But 16 is the current age of consent. I do NOT think this should be lowered.
Mr. Calum, the debate about voting age isn't about your daughter, it's about the general notion of letting all 16-17 year olds vote. There are some 12 year olds who would take voting very seriously. That does not mean the law should be changed for everyone.
I think most parents of 16/17 year olds (my wife and I included) were at first sceptical about extending the vote to this group. However, my view altered once I saw my daughter and her friends start to really engage in the process. What would be interesting to monitor is whether this group of voters are more (or less) likely to vote in the future, than those 16/17 year olds in the rest of the UK who did not have this opportunity.
Kerry Smith probably comes from a rougher part of Essex than I do, but I can imagine he is telling the truth here, and speaking for many people who others like to look down upon
("Mr Kerry?!")
"Speaking to The Telegraph Mr Kerry said: "I have every faith in Nigel [Farage, the Ukip leader] to resolve this. I think Nigel will make sure that the right person is put in Basildon and Thurrock for the right reasons. I'm working class, I am not politically correct and the language I used you would probably find on Del Boy.
"Let's be perfectly straight and honest about this, I am not politically correct. I am a bit rough around the edges, I am not going to deny that, I come from a council estate.
"It was never meant to offend. Where I grew up if you use PC words you got bashed." "
Kerry Smith probably comes from a rougher part of Essex than I do, but I can imagine he is telling the truth here, and speaking for many people who others like to look down upon
("Mr Kerry?!")
"Speaking to The Telegraph Mr Kerry said: "I have every faith in Nigel [Farage, the Ukip leader] to resolve this. I think Nigel will make sure that the right person is put in Basildon and Thurrock for the right reasons. I'm working class, I am not politically correct and the language I used you would probably find on Del Boy.
"Let's be perfectly straight and honest about this, I am not politically correct. I am a bit rough around the edges, I am not going to deny that, I come from a council estate.
"It was never meant to offend. Where I grew up if you use PC words you got bashed." "
Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?
Good lord no - If the voting age is to be introduced for 16 year olds, then it must apply to all 16 year olds equally, irrespective of an arbitrary criteria such as the number of GCSE gained. – that was is just a slippery slope for all sorts of 'future' nonsense imho.
Some of the inane arguments raised on here against lowering the voting age to 16 on this and previous threads show a strong and valid case for removing voting rights from those who made them .
It would appear that broadly speaking it's the left wingers here in favour, primarily as a way of swelling their flagging numbers of voting fodder with the fresh hordes of teenage socialists who've never paid a bill.
Ms Fitalass would not be pleased to be described as a leftie! Her comments did impress me, as did Mr Calum's. I had been agnostic or mildly positive but am now duly converted.
DavidL, hardly a left-winger, also came out in support this morning. Does anyone in Scotland of whatever persuasion now believe it was a bad idea?
I would contend that the only acceptable solution if we are to allow voting at 16 would be to also reduce the age of responsibility for all other acts both public and private. So that list I mentioned earlier should also be adjusted to 16 years of age. Buying cigarettes, alcohol and firearms, driving, marrying without parental consent, leaving education (which is just being raised to 18) and fighting for ones country should all be reduced to 16 as well by the same logic being applied here.
After all we are apparently claiming that young people are responsible enough to exercise one of the most important functions in society so why should we consider them too immature to have all the other responsibilities as well?
Presumably Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits would also stop on reaching 16.
How on earth can it be consistent to pay Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits for 16 and 17 year-olds if they aren't considered to be children?
The other one to remember is Jury Service - I wonder how many people charged with something they didn't do would want a 16 year-old deciding their fate?
Oh - it seems that Ireland may not be having a referendum on lowering the voting age to 16 next year as the Taoiseach only confirmed referendums on gay marriage and lowering the age for contesting Presidential elections (to be held in May 2015).
Kerry Smith probably comes from a rougher part of Essex than I do, but I can imagine he is telling the truth here, and speaking for many people who others like to look down upon
("Mr Kerry?!")
"Speaking to The Telegraph Mr Kerry said: "I have every faith in Nigel [Farage, the Ukip leader] to resolve this. I think Nigel will make sure that the right person is put in Basildon and Thurrock for the right reasons. I'm working class, I am not politically correct and the language I used you would probably find on Del Boy.
"Let's be perfectly straight and honest about this, I am not politically correct. I am a bit rough around the edges, I am not going to deny that, I come from a council estate.
"It was never meant to offend. Where I grew up if you use PC words you got bashed." "
Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?
Or weight vote by IQ ?
Perhaps have votes proportional to how much tax you paid in the previous year?
Or perhaps let everyone aged 16 and over vote.
But why 16, Mr. Observer? Surely you are just shifting an arbitrary cut off. So what makes 16 the right age? Why not something younger?
Indeed. But 16 is the age that was decided upon. And there is no evidence, as far as I know, that shows those who exercised their new found right did so with anything other than full attention. Maybe it will go lower at some point.
It is incumbent on the people who are advocating lowering the voting age to make the case for it. Not to say "we've decided to do it lower and it's everyone else that has to justify keeping it at the same age".
My case would be that it worked perfectly well in Scotland.
I see Jeb Bush is to "explore White House bid". Probably old news to regulars here.
He is 4.4-5.5 for the nomination with Betfair and 4.5 with Betfair Sportsbook
He is 7.6-8.6 for next POTUS with Betfair and 9.0 with Ladbrokes.
Anyone on him or think he's value at current prices?
Yep, I am on Bush for POTUS. I've posted on PB about this before. Even if he just decides to run the odds will come down and potentially allow some laying off.
Local plodsters in Avon and Somerset are trying to run a name and shame policy, so are we to believe that all those charged with drink driving are automatically guilty?
Presumably if they are found not guilty the local ratepayers may end up forking out for libel damages?
Local plodsters in Avon and Somerset are trying to run a name and shame policy, so are we to believe that all those charged with drink driving are automatically guilty?
Presumably if they are found not guilty the local ratepayers may end up forking out for libel damages?
Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?
Or weight vote by IQ ?
Perhaps have votes proportional to how much tax you paid in the previous year?
Or perhaps let everyone aged 16 and over vote.
But why 16, Mr. Observer? Surely you are just shifting an arbitrary cut off. So what makes 16 the right age? Why not something younger?
Indeed. But 16 is the age that was decided upon. And there is no evidence, as far as I know, that shows those who exercised their new found right did so with anything other than full attention. Maybe it will go lower at some point.
There is no evidence that 14 year olds would be any less diligent. Or 12 year olds or 8 years olds or babes in arms. So why do you think that 16 years is the right cut-off?
I don't think it is the "right cut-off". But after seeing what happened in Scotland I think it is a perfectly acceptable one.
Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?
Good lord no - If the voting age is to be introduced for 16 year olds, then it must apply to all 16 year olds equally, irrespective of an arbitrary criteria such as the number of GCSE gained. – that was is just a slippery slope for all sorts of 'future' nonsense imho.
Some of the inane arguments raised on here against lowering the voting age to 16 on this and previous threads show a strong and valid case for removing voting rights from those who made them .
It would appear that broadly speaking it's the left wingers here in favour, primarily as a way of swelling their flagging numbers of voting fodder with the fresh hordes of teenage socialists who've never paid a bill.
Ms Fitalass would not be pleased to be described as a leftie! Her comments did impress me, as did Mr Calum's. I had been agnostic or mildly positive but am now duly converted.
DavidL, hardly a left-winger, also came out in support this morning. Does anyone in Scotland of whatever persuasion now believe it was a bad idea?
The kippers - not the Mallaig kind but the David Coburn variety? They were agin it, IIRC, but I am not sure if they have followed the Tories and changed their minds.
Local plodsters in Avon and Somerset are trying to run a name and shame policy, so are we to believe that all those charged with drink driving are automatically guilty?
Presumably if they are found not guilty the local ratepayers may end up forking out for libel damages?
Both The BBC & The Bristol Post report that naming and shaming is going ahead, regardless of guilt or innocence.
I would contend that the only acceptable solution if we are to allow voting at 16 would be to also reduce the age of responsibility for all other acts both public and private. So that list I mentioned earlier should also be adjusted to 16 years of age. Buying cigarettes, alcohol and firearms, driving, marrying without parental consent, leaving education (which is just being raised to 18) and fighting for ones country should all be reduced to 16 as well by the same logic being applied here.
After all we are apparently claiming that young people are responsible enough to exercise one of the most important functions in society so why should we consider them too immature to have all the other responsibilities as well?
Well, in principle it's easy to imagine that different things need different levels of maturity or experience. About 40 sounds right for firearms. For elections, since your probability of deciding the outcome is small but the impact on your life may be huge, it makes sense to involve you early on.
The furious opposition to votes at 16 among many on here is one of the most baffling themes ever on PB.
It's all perspective @Bobajob. When I was 16 I thought I knew everything and how I wanted the vote. It turns out that I knew nothing worth knowing and with respect that would be the position todays 16 year olds would find themselves in.
But perhaps your 16-year-old self was right and your present self is mistaken? How do you know?
Sixth form, university, graduate school, service in HM Forces, fatherhood and 60 years life experience, perhaps?
But if you feel so strongly, Nick, perhaps you should step down in favour of a 16-year-old candidate in Broxtowe?
No, but I wouldn't object to a 16-year-old opponent on grounds of age. One of the Conservative candidates for the council and a vociferous critic is 17 (he'll be 18 by May, I assume). It's good to see him getting stuck into the debates.
Mr. Calum, the debate about voting age isn't about your daughter, it's about the general notion of letting all 16-17 year olds vote. There are some 12 year olds who would take voting very seriously. That does not mean the law should be changed for everyone.
I think most parents of 16/17 year olds (my wife and I included) were at first sceptical about extending the vote to this group. However, my view altered once I saw my daughter and her friends start to really engage in the process. What would be interesting to monitor is whether this group of voters are more (or less) likely to vote in the future, than those 16/17 year olds in the rest of the UK who did not have this opportunity.
Serious question Mr Calum, would you be happy to see your daughter and her friends able to marry without your permission and legally buy cigarettes, alcohol and firearms?
Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?
Or weight vote by IQ ?
Perhaps have votes proportional to how much tax you paid in the previous year?
Or perhaps let everyone aged 16 and over vote.
But why 16, Mr. Observer? Surely you are just shifting an arbitrary cut off. So what makes 16 the right age? Why not something younger?
Indeed. But 16 is the age that was decided upon. And there is no evidence, as far as I know, that shows those who exercised their new found right did so with anything other than full attention. Maybe it will go lower at some point.
There is no evidence that 14 year olds would be any less diligent. Or 12 year olds or 8 years olds or babes in arms. So why do you think that 16 years is the right cut-off?
It is the age of consent, Mr Llama?
Lower that then.
Why?
Why not.
OK, I can see where this is going so... I had hoped the jaundice in my remark may not have gone unnoticed. The starting remark by somebody said, given the lack of evidence why not lower it to 14. The ripost was that this 'was the age of consent' - another arbitrary age. So if that is the criterion then lower that if you want a lower voting age.
I can see that over time a sort of voting age arms race might arise and all parties might end up being pressurised to lower it. I hope it can be resisted and kept to the legal age of maturity, whatever that is set at.
But 16 is the current age of consent. I do NOT think this should be lowered.
Which bit of 'jaundice' do you not recognise? Perhaps I should have said 'sarcasm'. I don't think the age of consent should be lowered either. But to limit the voting age because of the age of consent is a pretty pointless criterion.
Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?
Or weight vote by IQ ?
Perhaps have votes proportional to how much tax you paid in the previous year?
Or perhaps let everyone aged 16 and over vote.
But why 16, Mr. Observer? Surely you are just shifting an arbitrary cut off. So what makes 16 the right age? Why not something younger?
Indeed. But 16 is the age that was decided upon. And there is no evidence, as far as I know, that shows those who exercised their new found right did so with anything other than full attention. Maybe it will go lower at some point.
It is incumbent on the people who are advocating lowering the voting age to make the case for it. Not to say "we've decided to do it lower and it's everyone else that has to justify keeping it at the same age".
My case would be that it worked perfectly well in Scotland.
So you're basing the franchise in the entire country on a single referendum? By the way, what would need to have happened in Scotland for you to consider it not working well?
Mr. Calum, the debate about voting age isn't about your daughter, it's about the general notion of letting all 16-17 year olds vote. There are some 12 year olds who would take voting very seriously. That does not mean the law should be changed for everyone.
I think most parents of 16/17 year olds (my wife and I included) were at first sceptical about extending the vote to this group. However, my view altered once I saw my daughter and her friends start to really engage in the process. What would be interesting to monitor is whether this group of voters are more (or less) likely to vote in the future, than those 16/17 year olds in the rest of the UK who did not have this opportunity.
Serious question Mr Calum, would you be happy to see your daughter and her friends able to marry without your permission and legally buy cigarettes, alcohol and firearms?
Why shouldn't two people above the age of consent be able to marry without their parents' permission?
Mr. Calum, the debate about voting age isn't about your daughter, it's about the general notion of letting all 16-17 year olds vote. There are some 12 year olds who would take voting very seriously. That does not mean the law should be changed for everyone.
I think most parents of 16/17 year olds (my wife and I included) were at first sceptical about extending the vote to this group. However, my view altered once I saw my daughter and her friends start to really engage in the process. What would be interesting to monitor is whether this group of voters are more (or less) likely to vote in the future, than those 16/17 year olds in the rest of the UK who did not have this opportunity.
Serious question Mr Calum, would you be happy to see your daughter and her friends able to marry without your permission and legally buy cigarettes, alcohol and firearms?
Errr, they can already marry without his permission.
Why not keep it at 18 for everyone but allow it at a younger age for those who have 5 GCSEs at C or better?
Or weight vote by IQ ?
Perhaps have votes proportional to how much tax you paid in the previous year?
Or perhaps let everyone aged 16 and over vote.
But why 16, Mr. Observer? Surely you are just shifting an arbitrary cut off. So what makes 16 the right age? Why not something younger?
Indeed. But 16 is the age that was decided upon. And there is no evidence, as far as I know, that shows those who exercised their new found right did so with anything other than full attention. Maybe it will go lower at some point.
There is no evidence that 14 year olds would be any less diligent. Or 12 year olds or 8 years olds or babes in arms. So why do you think that 16 years is the right cut-off?
It is the age of consent, Mr Llama?
Lower that then.
Why?
Why not.
OK, I can see where this is going so... I had hoped the jaundice in my remark may not have gone unnoticed. The starting remark by somebody said, given the lack of evidence why not lower it to 14. The ripost was that this 'was the age of consent' - another arbitrary age. So if that is the criterion then lower that if you want a lower voting age.
I can see that over time a sort of voting age arms race might arise and all parties might end up being pressurised to lower it. I hope it can be resisted and kept to the legal age of maturity, whatever that is set at.
But 16 is the current age of consent. I do NOT think this should be lowered.
Which bit of 'jaundice' do you not recognise? Perhaps I should have said 'sarcasm'. I don't think the age of consent should be lowered either. But to limit the voting age because of the age of consent is a pretty pointless criterion.
That's a relief - I was worried you might be another Tory pervert (note sarcasm!).
Parents are expected to support their children through university which is usually 5 years after they turn 16. An adult should be someone who is capable of supporting themselves and can act and think independent of parental pressure. Dropping the voting age to 16 an age when people are still very dependent on others does seem to me to be out of line of the principle that voters should be an individual adult. But I guess that it is the same as people dependent upon the state and not net contributers to the state. Why not have the 16 and 17 year olds vote in higher income taxes which they do not have to pay.....
No, but I wouldn't object to a 16-year-old opponent on grounds of age. One of the Conservative candidates for the council and a vociferous critic is 17 (he'll be 18 by May, I assume). It's good to see him getting stuck into the debates.
Aha! So the law considers that you have to be 18 to stand in an election?
That sound you heard was the votes-for-16-year-olds argument crashing and burning.
Given that our current politics are unhealthily geared to the concerns of those post-retirement at present, bringing that back slightly towards a younger demographic would be no bad thing.
No, but I wouldn't object to a 16-year-old opponent on grounds of age. One of the Conservative candidates for the council and a vociferous critic is 17 (he'll be 18 by May, I assume). It's good to see him getting stuck into the debates.
Aha! So the law considers that you have to be 18 to stand in an election?
That sound you heard was the votes-for-16-year-olds argument crashing and burning.
Until recently, the law held you could vote at 18 but had to be 21 to be a candidate.
"England won't put up with Scotland's behaviour for long Do the people and politicians of Scotland honestly think they can continue demanding a series of referendums in perpetuity? "
Kerry Smith probably comes from a rougher part of Essex than I do, but I can imagine he is telling the truth here, and speaking for many people who others like to look down upon
("Mr Kerry?!")
"Speaking to The Telegraph Mr Kerry said: "I have every faith in Nigel [Farage, the Ukip leader] to resolve this. I think Nigel will make sure that the right person is put in Basildon and Thurrock for the right reasons. I'm working class, I am not politically correct and the language I used you would probably find on Del Boy.
"Let's be perfectly straight and honest about this, I am not politically correct. I am a bit rough around the edges, I am not going to deny that, I come from a council estate.
"It was never meant to offend. Where I grew up if you use PC words you got bashed." "
I don't think I ever heard Delboy using racial slurs.
Only Fools & Horses had many many racial and homophobic slurs, with whole episodes being based on mockery of foreigners, different races, sexes & sexual preferences
The episodes wouldn't be shown in their entirety now, indeed, they are edited to remove the un PC language
It was a product of the tv standards of its time, but it probably still is very similar to real life many areas, and I would guess Basildon is one of them
Mr. Eagles, interesting stats, bit the figures for what the English alone want matter more.
Mr. Isam, sadly, the DVD version (in my edition, anyway) of A Blackadder Christmas Carol has cut out the bit about nailing the dog to a cross [a dog playing Jesus in a nativity play beforehand]. Pisses me off when people cut bits from DVDs.
Comments
Isam: Tower Hamlets UKIP were due to select their candidates for both Poplar & Limehouse and Bethnal Green & Bow a few days ago, but I can't find any information online. Do you know who was selected for the constituencies?
Perhaps have votes proportional to how much tax you paid in the previous year?
I think the inclusion of 16/17 year olds in the referendum was a successful experiment in improving our democracy. My daughter and many of her friends having shown no previous interest in politics, are now very engaged and I expect will do so for the rest of their lives. She had been thinking about joining the SNP - I think this might help her make up her mind !!
How, by the way, is your neighbour doing?
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/
As I understand it there are no such proposals on the table to let 15 yrs and 364 day olds vote. Reminds me of the bullshit when gay marriage was proposed: "what about letting dogs marry?"
Well I could or could not be in favour of canine weddings, but as no party with any chance of power had proposed the measure it would have been impolite to filibuster the thread by raising it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30506509
My neighbour is still very poorly and not likely to get any better but thanks for the info you sent yesterday, I have passed it on.
"Gift for shoppers: Prices at new low. Inflation down and fuel down"
How's that cost of Living crisis going Ed?
Ed? ..... Hello Ed? ....... Anyone there?
Ed's a total dud and so is Labour with there sound bites.
Mr. Calum, the debate about voting age isn't about your daughter, it's about the general notion of letting all 16-17 year olds vote. There are some 12 year olds who would take voting very seriously. That does not mean the law should be changed for everyone.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-30503589
Your inane and fatuous comments continue unabated I see.
Even the dimmest leftie could recognise a greater maturity of thought if they bothered to compare arguments made by GCSE and GCE A2 candidates.
But if you feel so strongly, Nick, perhaps you should step down in favour of a 16-year-old candidate in Broxtowe?
OK, I can see where this is going so... I had hoped the jaundice in my remark may not have gone unnoticed.
The starting remark by somebody said, given the lack of evidence why not lower it to 14. The ripost was that this 'was the age of consent' - another arbitrary age. So if that is the criterion then lower that if you want a lower voting age.
I can see that over time a sort of voting age arms race might arise and all parties might end up being pressurised to lower it. I hope it can be resisted and kept to the legal age of maturity, whatever that is set at.
After all we are apparently claiming that young people are responsible enough to exercise one of the most important functions in society so why should we consider them too immature to have all the other responsibilities as well?
He is 4.4-5.5 for the nomination with Betfair and 4.5 with Betfair Sportsbook
He is 7.6-8.6 for next POTUS with Betfair and 9.0 with Ladbrokes.
Anyone on him or think he's value at current prices?
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB
15h 15 hours ago
Since Osborne's Autumn statement all the pollsters bar YouGov have had LAB leads
("Mr Kerry?!")
"Speaking to The Telegraph Mr Kerry said: "I have every faith in Nigel [Farage, the Ukip leader] to resolve this. I think Nigel will make sure that the right person is put in Basildon and Thurrock for the right reasons. I'm working class, I am not politically correct and the language I used you would probably find on Del Boy.
"Let's be perfectly straight and honest about this, I am not politically correct. I am a bit rough around the edges, I am not going to deny that, I come from a council estate.
"It was never meant to offend. Where I grew up if you use PC words you got bashed." "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11297144/Former-Ukip-candidate-My-rant-was-no-worse-than-you-would-hear-from-Del-Boy.html
http://may2015.com/ideas/is-ukip-hurting-labour/
How on earth can it be consistent to pay Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits for 16 and 17 year-olds if they aren't considered to be children?
The other one to remember is Jury Service - I wonder how many people charged with something they didn't do would want a 16 year-old deciding their fate?
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/same-sex-marriage-vote-to-be-held-in-may-says-kenny-1.2039936
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11297326/Life-on-Mars-Nasa-finds-first-hint-of-alien-life.html
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Police-Bristol-shame-drink-drivers-Christmas/story-25400682-detail/story.html
Then again this is the Force which leaked stuff re Chris Jefferies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnjdVOOeM-E
Why did you lie on tuition fees etc.
Choose 16 or 18 or whatever, but make it so criminal responsibility, ability to vote, marry, die for your country, etc all happen at the same time.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Joyce
Suffice to say, I do hope the media will apply the same standards to Labour candidate selection as they have to UKIP.
That sound you heard was the votes-for-16-year-olds argument crashing and burning.
@NorseFired A #UKIP activist blames @LFC's poor form on God punishing them for sponsoring a Gay Pride event. via @edlnews
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B4_qDOmIUAAOkiE.jpg
"England won't put up with Scotland's behaviour for long
Do the people and politicians of Scotland honestly think they can continue demanding a series of referendums in perpetuity? "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11296689/England-wont-put-up-with-Scotlands-behaviour-for-long.html
The episodes wouldn't be shown in their entirety now, indeed, they are edited to remove the un PC language
It was a product of the tv standards of its time, but it probably still is very similar to real life many areas, and I would guess Basildon is one of them
40% support English parliament, 30% oppose. @itvnews
http://comres.co.uk/poll/1352/itv-news-evel-poll.htm …
Mr. Isam, sadly, the DVD version (in my edition, anyway) of A Blackadder Christmas Carol has cut out the bit about nailing the dog to a cross [a dog playing Jesus in a nativity play beforehand]. Pisses me off when people cut bits from DVDs.
Hot news from @edballsmp Xmas party. He passed his Grade 4 piano exam. V high score on sight reading.