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.
How so? By actually voting?
You may not like it, but that is no reason for changing the franchise.
Paging Sunil (and this is why I love London and this country)
A spontaneous sing-a-long isn’t something necessarily associated with Londoners, but that was exactly what happened on a London underground platform earlier this week.
Caught on camera, passengers waiting for the Northern line – always a reason to be depressed – at Kentish Town were somewhat surprised when one man burst into Erasure song ‘A Little Respect’.
Instead of burying their heads in their collars and trying desperately to pretend an adult male wasn’t belting out a classic ‘80s chart-topper, people along the platform joined the man in the impromptu performance.
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.
So now voting age=candidate age?
I thought Labour was supposed to be in favour of equality - when it suits them!
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.
I hadn't realised he was in Scotland. In England that is not the case.
The same basic principle applies though - alcohol, firearms, jury service, tobacco, fighting for ones country - are those advocating lowering the age for voting also willing to see it lowered for everything else.
I assume that would also include sex between 16 and 17 year old's and those in positions of authority or responsibility over them such as teachers.
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 have my moments Southam! But yes, the Scottish experience was indeed a lot more positive than might have been expected and I am not aware of any serious voice in Scotland now opposing a reduction in the voting age.
Sorry to interrupt this thread but something just happened that might interest PB readers as we were all there from the start. It seems David Little is in trouble again over THAT cartoon:
You might remember the UKIP Map of the World cartoon, spoofing Ukip's fears. It was picked up by David Little in a jolly moment, and posted on his facebook page - when the Tory candidate spotted it, he took it literally, and objected, then sent it to the Mirror who reported the story.
Now it's blown up again. I really feel sorry for David Little - what could be more British than having a self-deprecating sense of humour ... it seems people are still taking the cartoon literally, but I'm convinced most people can see immediately it's a spoof.
I'm sure PB readers can testify to the fact that it is a cartoon and not to be taken literally!
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.
I hadn't realised he was in Scotland. In England that is not the case.
The same basic principle applies though - alcohol, firearms, jury service, tobacco, fighting for ones country - are those advocating lowering the age for voting also willing to see it lowered for everything else.
I assume that would also include sex between 16 and 17 year old's and those in positions of authority or responsibility over them such as teachers.
I don't see these things as all being equivalent. I wouldn't regard it as essential that a couple should refrain from having sex until they're both old enough to be an HGV driver.
Why do I think allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote is appropriate? Because I believe that they participate in and are affected by enough of adult life to deserve their small say.
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?
Because in England and Wales they are not considered responsible enough to enter into such a contract under the age of 18.
I would like to see LIAMT or another legal eagle on here confirm it but I believe that no one under the age of 18 can enter into a contract for anything other than what are termed 'necessities'.
Sorry to interrupt this thread but something just happened that might interest PB readers as we were all there from the start. It seems David Little is in trouble again over THAT cartoon:
You might remember the UKIP Map of the World cartoon, spoofing Ukip's fears. It was picked up by David Little in a jolly moment, and posted on his facebook page - when the Tory candidate spotted it, he took it literally, and objected, then sent it to the Mirror who reported the story.
Now it's blown up again. I really feel sorry for David Little - what could be more British than having a self-deprecating sense of humour ... it seems people are still taking the cartoon literally, but I'm convinced most people can see immediately it's a spoof.
I'm sure PB readers can testify to the fact that it is a cartoon and not to be taken literally!
If he's got any sense he'll be delighted to get the extra publicity.
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.
I hadn't realised he was in Scotland. In England that is not the case.
The same basic principle applies though - alcohol, firearms, jury service, tobacco, fighting for ones country - are those advocating lowering the age for voting also willing to see it lowered for everything else.
I assume that would also include sex between 16 and 17 year old's and those in positions of authority or responsibility over them such as teachers.
I don't see these things as all being equivalent. I wouldn't regard it as essential that a couple should refrain from having sex until they're both old enough to be an HGV driver.
Why do I think allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote is appropriate? Because I believe that they participate in and are affected by enough of adult life to deserve their small say.
Some might argue that it is not how much you are affected by modern life but how much you contribute to it which is a better measure of whether or not you should be allowed to vote.
Obviously in the wider scheme of things that is impractical but it is no lkess valid a position than yours. After all a 14 year old can be profoundly affected by decisions being made by the Parliament of the day but they have no say in it.
It is about responsibilities not rights. If you do not consider a 16 year old responsible enough to drink alcohol or drive then I would suggest they are certainly not old enough to help make decisions about who runs the country.
Paging Sunil (and this is why I love London and this country)
A spontaneous sing-a-long isn’t something necessarily associated with Londoners, but that was exactly what happened on a London underground platform earlier this week.
Caught on camera, passengers waiting for the Northern line – always a reason to be depressed – at Kentish Town were somewhat surprised when one man burst into Erasure song ‘A Little Respect’.
Instead of burying their heads in their collars and trying desperately to pretend an adult male wasn’t belting out a classic ‘80s chart-topper, people along the platform joined the man in the impromptu performance.
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.
I hadn't realised he was in Scotland. In England that is not the case.
The same basic principle applies though - alcohol, firearms, jury service, tobacco, fighting for ones country - are those advocating lowering the age for voting also willing to see it lowered for everything else.
I assume that would also include sex between 16 and 17 year old's and those in positions of authority or responsibility over them such as teachers.
I don't see these things as all being equivalent. I wouldn't regard it as essential that a couple should refrain from having sex until they're both old enough to be an HGV driver.
Why do I think allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote is appropriate? Because I believe that they participate in and are affected by enough of adult life to deserve their small say.
Anyone in my year at school would have been affected by this I suppose. I was 17 1/2 in 1992, so couldn't vote in that Election, and didn't get to vote until 97 when obviously I was 22
and a half
Cant remember being all that bothered about it though really
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.
I hadn't realised he was in Scotland. In England that is not the case.
The same basic principle applies though - alcohol, firearms, jury service, tobacco, fighting for ones country - are those advocating lowering the age for voting also willing to see it lowered for everything else.
I assume that would also include sex between 16 and 17 year old's and those in positions of authority or responsibility over them such as teachers.
I don't see these things as all being equivalent. I wouldn't regard it as essential that a couple should refrain from having sex until they're both old enough to be an HGV driver.
Why do I think allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote is appropriate? Because I believe that they participate in and are affected by enough of adult life to deserve their small say.
Some might argue that it is not how much you are affected by modern life but how much you contribute to it which is a better measure of whether or not you should be allowed to vote.
Obviously in the wider scheme of things that is impractical but it is no lkess valid a position than yours. After all a 14 year old can be profoundly affected by decisions being made by the Parliament of the day but they have no say in it.
It is about responsibilities not rights. If you do not consider a 16 year old responsible enough to drink alcohol or drive then I would suggest they are certainly not old enough to help make decisions about who runs the country.
The voting age in the USA is 18 and the drinking age is 21. These anomalies can be found in many countries.
"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? "
This article is getting very fiery below the line. Being one of the "Crazy Nats" as so eloquently put by Dan, the answer to his question is yes. Luckily Daily Telegraph political commentators are not yet running the country, but in Scotland the likes of Dan, Alan Cochrane etc - are viewed as comedy acts. Articles like this will only drive the SNP surge.
Sorry to interrupt this thread but something just happened that might interest PB readers as we were all there from the start. It seems David Little is in trouble again over THAT cartoon:
You might remember the UKIP Map of the World cartoon, spoofing Ukip's fears. It was picked up by David Little in a jolly moment, and posted on his facebook page - when the Tory candidate spotted it, he took it literally, and objected, then sent it to the Mirror who reported the story.
Now it's blown up again. I really feel sorry for David Little - what could be more British than having a self-deprecating sense of humour ... it seems people are still taking the cartoon literally, but I'm convinced most people can see immediately it's a spoof.
I'm sure PB readers can testify to the fact that it is a cartoon and not to be taken literally!
Looks like paid trolls in the comment thread too. Strongly anti UKIP, yet (obviously) getting down arrowed for it. Utterly pathetic.
The voting age in the USA is 18 and the drinking age is 21. These anomalies can be found in many countries.
That doesn't make them right. I am sure you are not advocating adopting all of the US political system so it hardly advances your case to pick out bits that you happen to agree with to support your argument.
The basic principle that must apply is that if you consider someone mature enough to bear the responsibilities of choosing who governs the country then you must logically also consider them mature enough to bear all the other responsibilities of adulthood. Picking and choosing just those issues that suit your own political or personal agenda is illogical.
As it stands you are advocating a system where someone is responsible enough to vote but not responsible enough to buy themselves a mobile phone contract.
Comments
You may not like it, but that is no reason for changing the franchise.
A spontaneous sing-a-long isn’t something necessarily associated with Londoners, but that was exactly what happened on a London underground platform earlier this week.
Caught on camera, passengers waiting for the Northern line – always a reason to be depressed – at Kentish Town were somewhat surprised when one man burst into Erasure song ‘A Little Respect’.
Instead of burying their heads in their collars and trying desperately to pretend an adult male wasn’t belting out a classic ‘80s chart-topper, people along the platform joined the man in the impromptu performance.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/shocking-video-shows-london-underground-passengers-spontaneously-burst-into-song-9929069.html
I thought Labour was supposed to be in favour of equality - when it suits them!
https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/newsroom/drinkdrug-drivers-charged-and-named/
The same basic principle applies though - alcohol, firearms, jury service, tobacco, fighting for ones country - are those advocating lowering the age for voting also willing to see it lowered for everything else.
I assume that would also include sex between 16 and 17 year old's and those in positions of authority or responsibility over them such as teachers.
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 have my moments Southam! But yes, the Scottish experience was indeed a lot more positive than might have been expected and I am not aware of any serious voice in Scotland now opposing a reduction in the voting age.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2876349/School-bans-UKIP-candidate-posted-map-featuring-Bongo-Bongo-Land.html
You might remember the UKIP Map of the World cartoon, spoofing Ukip's fears. It was picked up by David Little in a jolly moment, and posted on his facebook page - when the Tory candidate spotted it, he took it literally, and objected, then sent it to the Mirror who reported the story.
Now it's blown up again. I really feel sorry for David Little - what could be more British than having a self-deprecating sense of humour ... it seems people are still taking the cartoon literally, but I'm convinced most people can see immediately it's a spoof.
I'm sure PB readers can testify to the fact that it is a cartoon and not to be taken literally!
Why do I think allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote is appropriate? Because I believe that they participate in and are affected by enough of adult life to deserve their small say.
I would like to see LIAMT or another legal eagle on here confirm it but I believe that no one under the age of 18 can enter into a contract for anything other than what are termed 'necessities'.
Obviously in the wider scheme of things that is impractical but it is no lkess valid a position than yours. After all a 14 year old can be profoundly affected by decisions being made by the Parliament of the day but they have no say in it.
It is about responsibilities not rights. If you do not consider a 16 year old responsible enough to drink alcohol or drive then I would suggest they are certainly not old enough to help make decisions about who runs the country.
Strange they say that, I would have thought it was something associated with Londoners
and a half
Cant remember being all that bothered about it though really
Well the Plod would think that. Found not guilty ..... costs and damages against the police.
The basic principle that must apply is that if you consider someone mature enough to bear the responsibilities of choosing who governs the country then you must logically also consider them mature enough to bear all the other responsibilities of adulthood. Picking and choosing just those issues that suit your own political or personal agenda is illogical.
As it stands you are advocating a system where someone is responsible enough to vote but not responsible enough to buy themselves a mobile phone contract.
Heads to bed and puts pillow over head