Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB has 16% lead amongst 17-22 year olds – but they may not

SystemSystem Posts: 12,214
edited December 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB has 16% lead amongst 17-22 year olds – but they may not be on the register and are the least reliable supporters

After a battering in frecent Scottish polls Labour can take some comfort this morning from an Opinium poll of new voters across England, Scotland and Wales for the Observer that shows the party with a substantial lead. That’s fine except for THREE problems.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • First! And remember how the 16-18s were going to swing it for the Nats?.....
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    edited December 2014
    I mentioned in last thread

    When they have lived under three socialist governments comprising of three different PM's they would vote anyone... Absolutely anyone but Labour.

    Ahh well? I guess the kids have to learn the hard way as ever...Shame really they, yet another generation will never really achieve and identify with aspiration and recognise what they were truly worth. Under a Labour government they will only ever achieve the lowest denominator or end up paying for it, the higher you achieve or work the more you pay under Labour.

    You just do ....as the " pips squeak"

    So be it...

    (Anyone ... Just anyone but Labour)

  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited December 2014
    O/T:

    One thing we can all thank Gordon Brown for: ending the 9% tax levied on gambling, which he abolished in the 2001 budget.

    http://www.bettingsites.co/articles/betting-tax-in-the-uk-do-i-have-to-pay-tax-on-my-gambling-winnings.html
  • O/T - but grim news from Indonesia - an AirAsia A320 with 162 onboard en-route from Surabaya to Singapore lost contact with ATC - it was due to land nearly 4 hours ago, so wherever it is, its no longer in the air. Not been a great year for aviation. It was a 6 year old aircraft.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited December 2014
    Kindof on-topic...

    We should give kids the vote. Everyone from key stage 3+

    Allocate ~5 mps in an STV multimember constituency, or however many is equivalent to 1/4 of an adult vote. It would be cheap as chips to administer (voter registration would be based on school enrolment records, polling can be done at secondary schools at lunchtime on 7th May), get all kids into the *habit* of voting and paying attention to politics, force parties to actually consider the impact of policies on kids and give them a proper voice in parliament.

    Seriously, why not? It would be great for democracy.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    edited December 2014
    Pong said:

    Kindof on-topic...

    We should give kids the vote. Everyone from key stage 3+

    Allocate ~5 mps in an STV multimember constituency, or however many is equivalent to 1/4 of an adult vote. It would be cheap as chips to administer (voter registration would be based on school enrolment records, polling can be done at secondary schools at lunchtime on 7th May), get all kids into the *habit* of voting and paying attention to politics, force parties to actually consider the impact of policies on kids and give them a proper voice in parliament.

    Seriously, why not? It would be great for democracy.


    I suspect somewhere, in the deepest depths of Whitehall.... Someone just read that.

    Expect this to be a balanced and sensible policy for the next Labour Government.Well it's as about as ludicrous as the one or two policies they and Ed have actually allowed the electorate to be aware of so far.

    The rest would just scare the bejesus out of a sane man or woman.

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Pong said:

    Kindof on-topic...

    We should give kids the vote. Everyone from key stage 3+

    Allocate ~5 mps in an STV multimember constituency, or however many is equivalent to 1/4 of an adult vote. It would be cheap as chips to administer (voter registration would be based on school enrolment records, polling can be done at secondary schools at lunchtime on 7th May), get all kids into the *habit* of voting and paying attention to politics, force parties to actually consider the impact of policies on kids and give them a proper voice in parliament.

    Seriously, why not? It would be great for democracy.

    Because the governance of our country is a serious matter and putting the franchise in the hands of people whose brains haven't fully formed is as idiotic an idea as Labour's energy policy.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    Moses_ said:

    Pong said:

    Kindof on-topic...

    We should give kids the vote. Everyone from key stage 3+

    Allocate ~5 mps in an STV multimember constituency, or however many is equivalent to 1/4 of an adult vote. It would be cheap as chips to administer (voter registration would be based on school enrolment records, polling can be done at secondary schools at lunchtime on 7th May), get all kids into the *habit* of voting and paying attention to politics, force parties to actually consider the impact of policies on kids and give them a proper voice in parliament.

    Seriously, why not? It would be great for democracy.


    I suspect somewhere, in the deepest depths of Whitehall.... Someone just read that.

    Expect this to be a balanced and sensible policy for the next Labour Government.

    Well it's as about as ludicrous as the one or two policies they and Ed have actually allowed the electorate to be aware of?

    But why is it ludicrous?

    There are loads of issues affecting kids that get swept under the carpet. If the kids had been given a political voice in the 70's/80's, the westminster paedo scandal might just have been exposed and diffused.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    edited December 2014
    Pong said:

    Moses_ said:

    Pong said:

    Kindof on-topic...

    We should give kids the vote. Everyone from key stage 3+

    Allocate ~5 mps in an STV multimember constituency, or however many is equivalent to 1/4 of an adult vote. It would be cheap as chips to administer (voter registration would be based on school enrolment records, polling can be done at secondary schools at lunchtime on 7th May), get all kids into the *habit* of voting and paying attention to politics, force parties to actually consider the impact of policies on kids and give them a proper voice in parliament.

    Seriously, why not? It would be great for democracy.


    I suspect somewhere, in the deepest depths of Whitehall.... Someone just read that.

    Expect this to be a balanced and sensible policy for the next Labour Government.

    Well it's as about as ludicrous as the one or two policies they and Ed have actually allowed the electorate to be aware of?

    But why is it ludicrous?

    There are loads of issues affecting kids that get swept under the carpet. If the kids had been given a political voice in the 70's/80's, the westminster paedo scandal might just have been exposed and diffused.

    Really? ........ Ok

  • Socrates said:

    Pong said:

    Kindof on-topic...

    We should give kids the vote. Everyone from key stage 3+

    Allocate ~5 mps in an STV multimember constituency, or however many is equivalent to 1/4 of an adult vote. It would be cheap as chips to administer (voter registration would be based on school enrolment records, polling can be done at secondary schools at lunchtime on 7th May), get all kids into the *habit* of voting and paying attention to politics, force parties to actually consider the impact of policies on kids and give them a proper voice in parliament.

    Seriously, why not? It would be great for democracy.

    Because the governance of our country is a serious matter and putting the franchise in the hands of people whose brains haven't fully formed is as idiotic an idea as Labour's energy policy.
    Not particularly my field but googling this up apparently our brains aren't finished fully forming until about age 25. That might sound like an argument for raising the voting age, but apparently mental performance starts measurably declining at 27, so if we're going to be basing it on this stuff it's going to mean a serious narrowing of the franchise.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    Socrates said:

    Pong said:

    Kindof on-topic...

    We should give kids the vote. Everyone from key stage 3+

    Allocate ~5 mps in an STV multimember constituency, or however many is equivalent to 1/4 of an adult vote. It would be cheap as chips to administer (voter registration would be based on school enrolment records, polling can be done at secondary schools at lunchtime on 7th May), get all kids into the *habit* of voting and paying attention to politics, force parties to actually consider the impact of policies on kids and give them a proper voice in parliament.

    Seriously, why not? It would be great for democracy.

    Because the governance of our country is a serious matter and putting the franchise in the hands of people whose brains haven't fully formed is as idiotic an idea as Labour's energy policy.
    The current voting age threshold is completely absurd. Votes4Kidz is a serious solution to a serious problem.

    IIRC, brains aren't fully formed until ~25 or so. Also, brain cells die off with age, so presumably you think the franchise should be removed as people lose their faculties?

    Who decides the mental capacity threshold for democratic participation?
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited December 2014
    Pong said:

    Socrates said:

    Pong said:

    Kindof on-topic...

    We should give kids the vote. Everyone from key stage 3+

    Allocate ~5 mps in an STV multimember constituency, or however many is equivalent to 1/4 of an adult vote. It would be cheap as chips to administer (voter registration would be based on school enrolment records, polling can be done at secondary schools at lunchtime on 7th May), get all kids into the *habit* of voting and paying attention to politics, force parties to actually consider the impact of policies on kids and give them a proper voice in parliament.

    Seriously, why not? It would be great for democracy.

    Because the governance of our country is a serious matter and putting the franchise in the hands of people whose brains haven't fully formed is as idiotic an idea as Labour's energy policy.
    The current voting age threshold is completely absurd. Votes4Kidz is a serious solution to a serious problem.

    IIRC, brains aren't fully formed until ~25 or so. Also, brain cells die off with age, so presumably you think the franchise should be removed as people lose their faculties?

    Who decides the mental capacity threshold for democratic participation?
    Simply, because they dont pay. The same reason I as I think there should be some tax for any level of earning, otherwise you have voters which only get the benefits of the system and never the costs, and that gives them a skewed view of the world. If you have a group of voters who only collect and dont contribute its not going to be a big surprise if they vote to collect more, since everyone else is paying.

    If you allow votes for 16 years olds, what would be the reason for denying it to 14 year olds, 12 year olds, 10 year olds... ? 18 is the age of majority, the age when you are legally responsible for yourself, and not beholden to anyone else. If you want to change the age of votes, to have any intellectual coherence, you have to let the same kids fight on the front line at 16, buy tobacco and alcohol at 16, sign binding contracts at 16, be sent to a full adult jail at 16 etc.
  • Indigo said:

    Pong said:

    Socrates said:

    Pong said:

    Kindof on-topic...

    We should give kids the vote. Everyone from key stage 3+

    Allocate ~5 mps in an STV multimember constituency, or however many is equivalent to 1/4 of an adult vote. It would be cheap as chips to administer (voter registration would be based on school enrolment records, polling can be done at secondary schools at lunchtime on 7th May), get all kids into the *habit* of voting and paying attention to politics, force parties to actually consider the impact of policies on kids and give them a proper voice in parliament.

    Seriously, why not? It would be great for democracy.

    Because the governance of our country is a serious matter and putting the franchise in the hands of people whose brains haven't fully formed is as idiotic an idea as Labour's energy policy.
    The current voting age threshold is completely absurd. Votes4Kidz is a serious solution to a serious problem.

    IIRC, brains aren't fully formed until ~25 or so. Also, brain cells die off with age, so presumably you think the franchise should be removed as people lose their faculties?

    Who decides the mental capacity threshold for democratic participation?
    Simply, because they dont pay. The same reason I as I think there should be some tax for any level of earning, otherwise you have voters which only get the benefits of the system and never the costs, and that gives them a skewed view of the world. If you have a group of voters who only collect and dont contribute its not going to be a big surprise if they vote to collect more, since everyone else is paying.

    If you allow votes for 16 years olds, what would be the reason for denying it to 14 year olds, 12 year olds, 10 year olds... ? 18 is the age of majority, the age when you are legally responsible for yourself, and not beholden to anyone else. If you want to change the age of votes, to have any intellectual coherence, you have to let the same kids fight on the front line at 16, buy tobacco and alcohol at 16, sign binding contracts at 16, be sent to a full adult jail at 16 etc.

    Are you suggesting that 16 year olds don't pay tax?

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Indigo said:

    Pong said:

    Socrates said:

    Pong said:

    Kindof on-topic...

    We should give kids the vote. Everyone from key stage 3+

    Allocate ~5 mps in an STV multimember constituency, or however many is equivalent to 1/4 of an adult vote. It would be cheap as chips to administer (voter registration would be based on school enrolment records, polling can be done at secondary schools at lunchtime on 7th May), get all kids into the *habit* of voting and paying attention to politics, force parties to actually consider the impact of policies on kids and give them a proper voice in parliament.

    Seriously, why not? It would be great for democracy.

    Because the governance of our country is a serious matter and putting the franchise in the hands of people whose brains haven't fully formed is as idiotic an idea as Labour's energy policy.
    The current voting age threshold is completely absurd. Votes4Kidz is a serious solution to a serious problem.

    IIRC, brains aren't fully formed until ~25 or so. Also, brain cells die off with age, so presumably you think the franchise should be removed as people lose their faculties?

    Who decides the mental capacity threshold for democratic participation?
    Simply, because they dont pay. The same reason I as I think there should be some tax for any level of earning, otherwise you have voters which only get the benefits of the system and never the costs, and that gives them a skewed view of the world. If you have a group of voters who only collect and dont contribute its not going to be a big surprise if they vote to collect more, since everyone else is paying.

    If you allow votes for 16 years olds, what would be the reason for denying it to 14 year olds, 12 year olds, 10 year olds... ? 18 is the age of majority, the age when you are legally responsible for yourself, and not beholden to anyone else. If you want to change the age of votes, to have any intellectual coherence, you have to let the same kids fight on the front line at 16, buy tobacco and alcohol at 16, sign binding contracts at 16, be sent to a full adult jail at 16 etc.

    Are you suggesting that 16 year olds don't pay tax?

    Since all young people will have to be in full time education until they are 18, they will not have enough of a job to get anywhere near the lower earnings limit except in very unusual cases. How about engaging with the 95% of my case rather than looking at the 5% you can score a cheap point from ?
  • Indigo said:

    Indigo said:

    Pong said:

    Socrates said:

    Pong said:

    Kindof on-topic...

    We should give kids the vote. Everyone from key stage 3+

    Allocate ~5 mps in an STV multimember constituency, or however many is equivalent to 1/4 of an adult vote. It would be cheap as chips to administer (voter registration would be based on school enrolment records, polling can be done at secondary schools at lunchtime on 7th May), get all kids into the *habit* of voting and paying attention to politics, force parties to actually consider the impact of policies on kids and give them a proper voice in parliament.

    Seriously, why not? It would be great for democracy.

    Because the governance of our country is a serious matter and putting the franchise in the hands of people whose brains haven't fully formed is as idiotic an idea as Labour's energy policy.
    The current voting age threshold is completely absurd. Votes4Kidz is a serious solution to a serious problem.

    IIRC, brains aren't fully formed until ~25 or so. Also, brain cells die off with age, so presumably you think the franchise should be removed as people lose their faculties?

    Who decides the mental capacity threshold for democratic participation?
    Simply, because they dont pay. The same reason I as I think there should be some tax for any level of earning, otherwise you have voters which only get the benefits of the system and never the costs, and that gives them a skewed view of the world. If you have a group of voters who only collect and dont contribute its not going to be a big surprise if they vote to collect more, since everyone else is paying.

    If you allow votes for 16 years olds, what would be the reason for denying it to 14 year olds, 12 year olds, 10 year olds... ? 18 is the age of majority, the age when you are legally responsible for yourself, and not beholden to anyone else. If you want to change the age of votes, to have any intellectual coherence, you have to let the same kids fight on the front line at 16, buy tobacco and alcohol at 16, sign binding contracts at 16, be sent to a full adult jail at 16 etc.

    Are you suggesting that 16 year olds don't pay tax?

    Since all young people will have to be in full time education until they are 18, they will not have enough of a job to get anywhere near the lower earnings limit except in very unusual cases. How about engaging with the 95% of my case rather than looking at the 5% you can score a cheap point from ?

    There are more taxes than those on income. VAT, for example. Your argument applies to 18 year olds too. Should we be looking to raise the voting age?



  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Indigo said:

    Indigo said:


    Simply, because they dont pay. The same reason I as I think there should be some tax for any level of earning, otherwise you have voters which only get the benefits of the system and never the costs, and that gives them a skewed view of the world. If you have a group of voters who only collect and dont contribute its not going to be a big surprise if they vote to collect more, since everyone else is paying.

    If you allow votes for 16 years olds, what would be the reason for denying it to 14 year olds, 12 year olds, 10 year olds... ? 18 is the age of majority, the age when you are legally responsible for yourself, and not beholden to anyone else. If you want to change the age of votes, to have any intellectual coherence, you have to let the same kids fight on the front line at 16, buy tobacco and alcohol at 16, sign binding contracts at 16, be sent to a full adult jail at 16 etc.

    Are you suggesting that 16 year olds don't pay tax?

    Since all young people will have to be in full time education until they are 18, they will not have enough of a job to get anywhere near the lower earnings limit except in very unusual cases. How about engaging with the 95% of my case rather than looking at the 5% you can score a cheap point from ?

    There are more taxes than those on income. VAT, for example. Your argument applies to 18 year olds too. Should we be looking to raise the voting age?

    The 3 year old pays VAT on his candy bar, are you proposing to give him the vote ? You are continuing with the cheap points sadly. What about the whole second section of my post ?
    If you allow votes for 16 years olds, what would be the reason for denying it to 14 year olds, 12 year olds, 10 year olds... ? 18 is the age of majority, the age when you are legally responsible for yourself, and not beholden to anyone else. If you want to change the age of votes, to have any intellectual coherence, you have to let the same kids fight on the front line at 16, buy tobacco and alcohol at 16, sign binding contracts at 16, be sent to a full adult jail at 16 etc.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    edited December 2014
    Indigo said:

    Indigo said:

    Indigo said:


    Simply, because they dont pay. The same reason I as I think there should be some tax for any level of earning, otherwise you have voters which only get the benefits of the system and never the costs, and that gives them a skewed view of the world. If you have a group of voters who only collect and dont contribute its not going to be a big surprise if they vote to collect more, since everyone else is paying.

    If you allow votes for 16 years olds, what would be the reason for denying it to 14 year olds, 12 year olds, 10 year olds... ? 18 is the age of majority, the age when you are legally responsible for yourself, and not beholden to anyone else. If you want to change the age of votes, to have any intellectual coherence, you have to let the same kids fight on the front line at 16, buy tobacco and alcohol at 16, sign binding contracts at 16, be sent to a full adult jail at 16 etc.

    Are you suggesting that 16 year olds don't pay tax?

    Since all young people will have to be in full time education until they are 18, they will not have enough of a job to get anywhere near the lower earnings limit except in very unusual cases. How about engaging with the 95% of my case rather than looking at the 5% you can score a cheap point from ?

    There are more taxes than those on income. VAT, for example. Your argument applies to 18 year olds too. Should we be looking to raise the voting age?

    The 3 year old pays VAT on his candy bar, are you proposing to give him the vote ? You are continuing with the cheap points sadly. What about the whole second section of my post ?
    If you allow votes for 16 years olds, what would be the reason for denying it to 14 year olds, 12 year olds, 10 year olds... ? 18 is the age of majority, the age when you are legally responsible for yourself, and not beholden to anyone else. If you want to change the age of votes, to have any intellectual coherence, you have to let the same kids fight on the front line at 16, buy tobacco and alcohol at 16, sign binding contracts at 16, be sent to a full adult jail at 16 etc.


    So we agree that your argument on voting and tax is spurious.

    As for the rest - women do not fight on the frontline. Should they not vote?

    The voting age will always be arbitrary. I can't see a good reason not to allow 16 year olds to vote on what kind of country they want to live in. At that age we consider them to be legally capable of creating and raising human life - and that strikes me as a pretty big responsibility. I can see plenty of good reasons why they should not go to adult prisons, fight in wars or be able to buy fags.

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    edited December 2014

    There are more taxes than those on income. VAT, for example. Your argument applies to 18 year olds too. Should we be looking to raise the voting age?

    A franchise based on property ownership would work nicely.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,668
    edited December 2014
    GeoffM said:

    There are more taxes than those on income. VAT, for example. Your argument applies to 18 year olds too. Should we be looking to raise the voting age?

    A franchise based on property ownership would work nicely.

    Everyone owns stuff.

    Edit - Sorry, I did not read the post properly. Now that I have, I am not sure disenfranchising those who live in rented accommodation is a great idea.


  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    GeoffM said:

    There are more taxes than those on income. VAT, for example. Your argument applies to 18 year olds too. Should we be looking to raise the voting age?

    A franchise based on property ownership would work nicely.

    Indeed... A government franchise tax on property and of course inability to pay... Yeahhhhh!! Labour and the lefties will be up in arms about this......Oh? Wait a minute.....


    Did someone mention Labours. mansion tax? Or even "The Granny tax" as it's better known. Of course
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited December 2014
    Indigo said:

    Indigo said:

    Indigo said:


    Simply, because they dont pay. The same reason I as I think there should be some tax for any level of earning, otherwise you have voters which only get the benefits of the system and never the costs, and that gives them a skewed view of the world. If you have a group of voters who only collect and dont contribute its not going to be a big surprise if they vote to collect more, since everyone else is paying.

    If you allow votes for 16 years olds, what would be the reason for denying it to 14 year olds, 12 year olds, 10 year olds... ? 18 is the age of majority, the age when you are legally responsible for yourself, and not beholden to anyone else. If you want to change the age of votes, to have any intellectual coherence, you have to let the same kids fight on the front line at 16, buy tobacco and alcohol at 16, sign binding contracts at 16, be sent to a full adult jail at 16 etc.

    Are you suggesting that 16 year olds don't pay tax?

    Since all young people will have to be in full time education until they are 18, they will not have enough of a job to get anywhere near the lower earnings limit except in very unusual cases. How about engaging with the 95% of my case rather than looking at the 5% you can score a cheap point from ?

    There are more taxes than those on income. VAT, for example. Your argument applies to 18 year olds too. Should we be looking to raise the voting age?

    The 3 year old pays VAT on his candy bar, are you proposing to give him the vote ? You are continuing with the cheap points sadly. What about the whole second section of my post ?
    If you allow votes for 16 years olds, what would be the reason for denying it to 14 year olds, 12 year olds, 10 year olds... ? 18 is the age of majority, the age when you are legally responsible for yourself, and not beholden to anyone else. If you want to change the age of votes, to have any intellectual coherence, you have to let the same kids fight on the front line at 16, buy tobacco and alcohol at 16, sign binding contracts at 16, be sent to a full adult jail at 16 etc.

    Extending the general franchise to 16/17 year olds is politically inevitable after #indyref. Whether it happens after 2015, or 2020 or whenever, it'll happen. The political & constitutional question is whether we lower an absurd, arbitary threshold, or come up with something better.

    IMO a ~5 MP, UK-wide STV constituency for all 11-18 year olds is the least absurd, most intellectually coherent solution.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    edited December 2014

    GeoffM said:

    There are more taxes than those on income. VAT, for example. Your argument applies to 18 year olds too. Should we be looking to raise the voting age?

    A franchise based on property ownership would work nicely.

    Everyone owns stuff.

    Property as defined here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Franchise_in_the_United_Kingdom_1885–1918

    [edited to remove uncalled-for grumpiness]
  • Moses_ said:

    GeoffM said:

    There are more taxes than those on income. VAT, for example. Your argument applies to 18 year olds too. Should we be looking to raise the voting age?

    A franchise based on property ownership would work nicely.

    Indeed... A government franchise tax on property and of course inability to pay... Yeahhhhh!! Labour and the lefties will be up in arms about this......Oh? Wait a minute.....


    Did someone mention Labours. mansion tax? Or even "The Granny tax" as it's better known. Of course

    Why not just allow Tories to vote?

  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    GeoffM said:

    There are more taxes than those on income. VAT, for example. Your argument applies to 18 year olds too. Should we be looking to raise the voting age?

    A franchise based on property ownership would work nicely.
    Seriously?
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Pong said:

    GeoffM said:

    There are more taxes than those on income. VAT, for example. Your argument applies to 18 year olds too. Should we be looking to raise the voting age?

    A franchise based on property ownership would work nicely.
    Seriously?
    Yes, why not? It's very sensible. Reduces the franchise to individuals who have put a bit of effort in - or their families have.

    Certainly beats letting toddlers vote for politicians who promise Free Nappies For All (paid for by a bankers bonus tax)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    The franchise is a fascinating discussion. Who was it who said (something like) "democracy dies when we realise we can all vote ourselves a pay rise"?

    Take Japan: the ageing of Japan, and the fact that the bulk of voters are of - or approaching - retirement age is one of the key reasons that economy has stagnated for almost 25 years. Retired voters did not want to vote for inflationary policies which diminished the value of their pensions, even though that was clearly negative for the Japanese economy longer term. It's only in the last five years, that the Japanese political class has realised that presiding over a slide into oblivion is not a smart option, that they have begun seriously attempting to rekindle inflation.

    I think it's also very important not to try and frame the franchise in a way that brings narrow, sectional advantage. "I don't want people with different views to mine to vote because of [x]" is an incredibly dangerous attitude.

    I also worry about basing voting on tax paying. To give a trivial example, say I am a serial entrepreneur (which I am, in my spare time), and that I build a business over three years (during which I earn nothing) and then I sell it in year four. I then do the same, again and again and again. Because I'm only paying tax one year in four, do I get the vote?

    Similarly, you end up with a situation where in work people - who are scared of losing their jobs and scared of being disenfranchised - seek all kinds of worker protection. (Of course, as France and Italy demonstrate, worker protection - beyond a certain point - leads to slower economic growth and higher unemployment.) Essentially, you create a system which discourages optimal outcomes.

    Property ownership is equally difficult. What happens if I own a share of a property? Do I get the vote? If it's OK, what's to stop me buying up a property and having 10,000 different owners? Do I have to live in my property? Not only that, but you end up with the same warped incentive system that happens with basing voting on taxation (i.e. employment); if only property owners had the vote, I could pretty much guarantee mortgage interest tax relief would be passed in the first budget. Property prices would soar, because property owners would pass laws that benefitted... property owners.

    You know what: let's simply have a universal age of adulthood (say 18), and say that you get the vote then. I think it's simple, and it works.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    The correct quote is "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. "
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    GeoffM said:

    Pong said:

    GeoffM said:

    There are more taxes than those on income. VAT, for example. Your argument applies to 18 year olds too. Should we be looking to raise the voting age?

    A franchise based on property ownership would work nicely.
    Seriously?
    Yes, why not? It's very sensible. Reduces the franchise to individuals who have put a bit of effort in - or their families have.

    Certainly beats letting toddlers vote for politicians who promise Free Nappies For All (paid for by a bankers bonus tax)
    Sorry, I assumed your comment was tongue in cheek. Easy mistake to make.

    I swear the average PB'er is a 70 year old white male 'kipper...

    Shall we discuss grammar schools?

    :)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,709
    Isn’t there an argument for letting young people be in a posiion to be informed and argue about politics ....... which in my experience starts at about 14 or 15 ........ and use rthe next two or three years as a form of “apprenticeship” so that they can, as now, vote at 18.

    It’s a bit like sex; something you really feel able to do and have strong views about from 14 or so, but which you can’t exercise to the full for a couple oif years!
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Pong said:

    GeoffM said:

    Pong said:

    GeoffM said:

    There are more taxes than those on income. VAT, for example. Your argument applies to 18 year olds too. Should we be looking to raise the voting age?

    A franchise based on property ownership would work nicely.
    Seriously?
    Yes, why not? It's very sensible. Reduces the franchise to individuals who have put a bit of effort in - or their families have.

    Certainly beats letting toddlers vote for politicians who promise Free Nappies For All (paid for by a bankers bonus tax)
    Sorry, I assumed your comment was tongue in cheek. Easy mistake to make.

    I swear the average PB'er is a 70 year old white male 'kipper...

    Shall we discuss grammar schools?

    :)
    Ironically I initially assumed your comment was tongue in cheek as well.
    It appears that we were both mistaken!

    You are 50% right in that four part description (although Geoff/male was an easy win)
  • It's was ever thus. Not to be a socialist at twenty shows want of heart, to be a socialist at thirty shows want of head. I just hope these brats don't vote.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Pong said:

    Indigo said:

    Indigo said:

    Since all young people will have to be in full time education until they are 18, they will not have enough of a job to get anywhere near the lower earnings limit except in very unusual cases. How about engaging with the 95% of my case rather than looking at the 5% you can score a cheap point from ?

    There are more taxes than those on income. VAT, for example. Your argument applies to 18 year olds too. Should we be looking to raise the voting age?

    The 3 year old pays VAT on his candy bar, are you proposing to give him the vote ? You are continuing with the cheap points sadly. What about the whole second section of my post ?
    If you allow votes for 16 years olds, what would be the reason for denying it to 14 year olds, 12 year olds, 10 year olds... ? 18 is the age of majority, the age when you are legally responsible for yourself, and not beholden to anyone else. If you want to change the age of votes, to have any intellectual coherence, you have to let the same kids fight on the front line at 16, buy tobacco and alcohol at 16, sign binding contracts at 16, be sent to a full adult jail at 16 etc.
    Extending the general franchise to 16/17 year olds is politically inevitable after #indyref. Whether it happens after 2015, or 2020 or whenever, it'll happen. The political & constitutional question is whether we lower an absurd, arbitary threshold, or come up with something better.

    IMO a ~5 MP, UK-wide STV constituency for all 11-18 year olds is the least absurd, most intellectually coherent solution.

    In what way is 18 absurd or arbitrary, its the age of majority. If you were to propose an argument for changing the age of majority that would be something, but calling voting age absurd when its is based on the age you legally become an adult seems like hyperbole.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    edited December 2014

    Isn’t there an argument for letting young people be in a posiion to be informed and argue about politics ....... which in my experience starts at about 14 or 15 ........ and use rthe next two or three years as a form of “apprenticeship” so that they can, as now, vote at 18.

    It’s a bit like sex; something you really feel able to do and have strong views about from 14 or so, but which you can’t exercise to the full for a couple oif years!

    Agree. I did that at college in the UK a couple of decades ago. We had a Politics Society and a string of excellent speakers. Lord Wilson of Rievaulx was our Hon President. Mock elections and hustings were run every year ... under STV, which has probably ingrained my hatred of it down the years.

    Politics A Level was available. There was a top notch debating society which I had the honour of chairing for a few years. We were "informed and argued about politics"

    However nobody was daft enough to suggest that we should be able to endanger the actual world with our naive and untested views. To extend your 14 year old sex analogy ... we practiced using magazines for a few years before the real thing.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865

    Moses_ said:

    GeoffM said:

    There are more taxes than those on income. VAT, for example. Your argument applies to 18 year olds too. Should we be looking to raise the voting age?

    A franchise based on property ownership would work nicely.

    Indeed... A government franchise tax on property and of course inability to pay... Yeahhhhh!! Labour and the lefties will be up in arms about this......Oh? Wait a minute.....


    Did someone mention Labours. mansion tax? Or even "The Granny tax" as it's better known. Of course

    Why not just allow Tories to vote?

    A comment Not worthy of any response
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    edited December 2014
    I like the way that the old farts make sure that their bus passes and generous pensions are insulated from the cuts while loftily telling the younger generation that student loans are a regrettable necessity and anyway they're too young to understand. Talk about feathering your own nest.

    The young are the ones that are going to live longest with the decisions of government. They suffer most from bad decisions. Giving them the vote is a small way of entrusting them with responsibility. In my experience, 16 year olds can be at least as thoughtful about this as older voters and their thoughts are less ossified.

    Anyone looking for full consistency in ages of majority should give up. It's not as though current age boundaries have been set in stone for untold generations. They've been changing all the time.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,016
    Voter registration under the new system is a lot more hassle. My daughter who voted and was active in the referendum has not managed it yet. She is interested in politics and her parents are encouraging her so she will get around to it in time for the election but I do wonder how many won't. The new system risks a generation who are disengaged from the system and never learn to vote.

    We will be able to test this quite precisely in Scotland which probably had the most complete and up to date electoral register in the world in September. If there are tens of thousands no longer on the register in May that will be a disgrace. I fear that is exactly what we will see.

    I think if we are going to have single registration then there should be a responsibility on the educational establishment the young person is attending to assist in registration and to push for it. Our whole system is already grossly biased in favour of oldies and the effect on public policy and spending is there for all to see. We must not go further down the same path.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    antifrank said:

    I like the way that the old farts make sure that their bus passes and generous pensions are insulated from the cuts while loftily telling the younger generation that student loans are a regrettable necessity and anyway they're too young to understand. Talk about feathering your own nest.

    The young are the ones that are going to live longest with the decisions of government. They suffer most from bad decisions. Giving them the vote is a small way of entrusting them with responsibility. In my experience, 16 year olds can be at least as thoughtful about this as older voters and their thoughts are less ossified.

    Anyone looking for full consistency in ages of majority should give up. It's not as though current age boundaries have been set in stone for untold generations. They've been changing all the time.

    And their voting a lot more liberal on the whole, not that that crossed your mind I am sure.
  • antifrank said:


    The young are the ones that are going to live longest with the decisions of government. They suffer most from bad decisions. Giving them the vote is a small way of entrusting them with responsibility. In my experience, 16 year olds can be at least as thoughtful about this as older voters and their thoughts are less ossified.

    The other angle to this is that older people tend to vote across the board, even if the ones who don't really follow things closely enough to understand what they're voting on. Younger voters tend to self-select by only voting if they're really into it while the least clueful stay at home, so widening the franchise would tend to raise the average.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,016
    As for the voting age can I suggest that such a clear understanding that Farage is a source of amusement rather than anyone you would seriously think about voting for shows they are more than ready to have the franchise. Better than many of their elders in fact who seem to have gained little from all that experience and supposedly superior judgement.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    antifrank said:


    The young are the ones that are going to live longest with the decisions of government. They suffer most from bad decisions. Giving them the vote is a small way of entrusting them with responsibility. In my experience, 16 year olds can be at least as thoughtful about this as older voters and their thoughts are less ossified.

    The other angle to this is that older people tend to vote across the board, even if the ones who don't really follow things closely enough to understand what they're voting on. Younger voters tend to self-select by only voting if they're really into it while the least clueful stay at home, so widening the franchise would tend to raise the average.
    I still haven't heard one good reason why 16 is a good age, and 14 isn't.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited December 2014
    Indigo said:

    antifrank said:


    The young are the ones that are going to live longest with the decisions of government. They suffer most from bad decisions. Giving them the vote is a small way of entrusting them with responsibility. In my experience, 16 year olds can be at least as thoughtful about this as older voters and their thoughts are less ossified.

    The other angle to this is that older people tend to vote across the board, even if the ones who don't really follow things closely enough to understand what they're voting on. Younger voters tend to self-select by only voting if they're really into it while the least clueful stay at home, so widening the franchise would tend to raise the average.
    I still haven't heard one good reason why 16 is a good age, and 14 isn't.
    I like 14 better - I'm not actually sure this needs a top-down rule at all, because capable voters will self-select and the incapable won't bother. The only criterion that might be needed is a test or cut-off to make sure the voters are sufficiently independent-minded not to just do what their parents tell them. (There's a separate argument for giving parents of small children two votes, but I don't think I'm convinced on balance.)

    I'm not sure what age kids need to be to avoid the risk that they'll do what their parents tell them: 16 seems very safe, and probably way too cautious. Maybe people with teenage kids can advise?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,536
    DavidL said:

    As for the voting age can I suggest that such a clear understanding that Farage is a source of amusement rather than anyone you would seriously think about voting for shows they are more than ready to have the franchise. Better than many of their elders in fact who seem to have gained little from all that experience and supposedly superior judgement.

    According to the poll, these are people who think that Eddie Izzard and Russell Brand have useful things to say about politics.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,016
    Indigo said:

    antifrank said:


    The young are the ones that are going to live longest with the decisions of government. They suffer most from bad decisions. Giving them the vote is a small way of entrusting them with responsibility. In my experience, 16 year olds can be at least as thoughtful about this as older voters and their thoughts are less ossified.

    The other angle to this is that older people tend to vote across the board, even if the ones who don't really follow things closely enough to understand what they're voting on. Younger voters tend to self-select by only voting if they're really into it while the least clueful stay at home, so widening the franchise would tend to raise the average.
    I still haven't heard one good reason why 16 is a good age, and 14 isn't.
    In Scotland that is easy. 16 is the age of majority, not 18, albeit with certain safeguards.

    Until very recently it was also the age at which you had to make a choice between entering the world of work or continuing education, a far more serious decision for the individual concerned than who to vote for. With education now being compulsory until 18 I accept that argument has got weaker although significant numbers will go down the apprenticeship route at 16.

    I would accept the age is always arbitrary to some degree but I think there is a strong case for 16.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,016
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    As for the voting age can I suggest that such a clear understanding that Farage is a source of amusement rather than anyone you would seriously think about voting for shows they are more than ready to have the franchise. Better than many of their elders in fact who seem to have gained little from all that experience and supposedly superior judgement.

    According to the poll, these are people who think that Eddie Izzard and Russell Brand have useful things to say about politics.
    According to the polls a significant number of over 50s think Farage does. It's ridiculous isn't it?
  • rcs1000 said:


    Take Japan: the ageing of Japan, and the fact that the bulk of voters are of - or approaching - retirement age is one of the key reasons that economy has stagnated for almost 25 years. Retired voters did not want to vote for inflationary policies which diminished the value of their pensions, even though that was clearly negative for the Japanese economy longer term. It's only in the last five years, that the Japanese political class has realised that presiding over a slide into oblivion is not a smart option, that they have begun seriously attempting to rekindle inflation.

    Oddly it seems to be mostly older people who just voted to destroy the value of their life savings...

    The general point's right though, and the voting system makes it worse because rural constituencies still have nearly as many MPs as they used to have before all the young people who used to live there moved to the cities.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    I'm not sure what age kids need to be to avoid the risk that they'll do what their parents tell them: 16 seems very safe, and probably way too cautious. Maybe people with teenage kids can advise?

    I am not sure its safe to make that assumption at all. We have seen evidence from postal voting investigations that even adults in some households, especially those from more traditional and patriarchal cultures will vote according to the wishes of the head of the household. Surprised it doesn't happen in Japan, certainly happens here.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    DavidL said:

    As for the voting age can I suggest that such a clear understanding that Farage is a source of amusement rather than anyone you would seriously think about voting for shows they are more than ready to have the franchise. Better than many of their elders in fact who seem to have gained little from all that experience and supposedly superior judgement.

    59% also support cuts vs 18% higher taxes to reduce the deficit.

    The youngsters are not voting themselves largesse from the public purse (though they may favour cuts in pensioners benefits to increased student fees). The kids are alright. Trust them with the vote.

    More anomolous is that Commonwealth citizens can vote but other nationalities. One million Commonwealth citizens can vote, even recent arrivals. Either restrict the vote to British citizens, or extend it to other foreigners with permanent settlement rights.

  • I like 14 better - I'm not actually sure this needs a top-down rule at all, because capable voters will self-select and the incapable won't bother. The only criterion that might be needed is a test or cut-off to make sure the voters are sufficiently independent-minded not to just do what their parents tell them. (There's a separate argument for giving parents of small children two votes, but I don't think I'm convinced on balance.)

    I'm not sure what age kids need to be to avoid the risk that they'll do what their parents tell them: 16 seems very safe, and probably way too cautious. Maybe people with teenage kids can advise?

    TOKYO, June 20 -- Japan's minimum voting age was officially lowered to 18 from 20 as a revised national referendum law took effect on Friday, in a effort by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to amend the country's war-renouncing pacifist constitution.
    [Src.: http://en.people.cn/n/2014/0620/c90777-8744208.html ]

    Maybe Gaijin thinks the answer is "eight"....
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    The thing with lowing the voting age is, in reality it probably wouldn't change much except for giving political visibility to the issues facing teenagers. The cultural (and age) gap between kids and their parents is wider now than ever before - instant communication and the internet has changed the experience of growing up completely.

    When we're making policy on pornography, we need to hear the voices of the kids who have had their sexts leaked online. When we're discussing grammar schools, we need kids to stand up and point out how personalised education will make the debate utterly irrelevant. If raiding pension pots and raising the pension age seems unfair, we need the kids to point out that it's still unfair that their parents get a better deal than they will. We need the kids to be angry that house price inflation has transferred their wealth to their parents.

    votez4kidz is the way forward.
  • DavidL said:

    In Scotland that is easy. 16 is the age of majority, not 18, albeit with certain safeguards.

    Until very recently it was also the age at which you had to make a choice between entering the world of work or continuing education, a far more serious decision for the individual concerned than who to vote for. With education now being compulsory until 18 I accept that argument has got weaker although significant numbers will go down the apprenticeship route at 16.

    I would accept the age is always arbitrary to some degree but I think there is a strong case for 16.

    My researches have been cursory, but the Age of Majority (Scotland) Act 1969, s.1(1) is still in force, providing:
    As from the date on which this Act comes into force a person shall attain majority on attaining the age of eighteen instead of on attaining the age of twenty-one; and a person shall attain majority on that date if he has then already attained the age of eighteen but not the age of twenty-one.
    16 and 17 year olds still cannot vote nor serve as jurors in solemn proceedings. Is a contract entered into by a sixteen year old not voidable at his own instance?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,730

    Socrates said:

    Pong said:

    Kindof on-topic...

    We should give kids the vote. Everyone from key stage 3+

    Allocate ~5 mps in an STV multimember constituency, or however many is equivalent to 1/4 of an adult vote. It would be cheap as chips to administer (voter registration would be based on school enrolment records, polling can be done at secondary schools at lunchtime on 7th May), get all kids into the *habit* of voting and paying attention to politics, force parties to actually consider the impact of policies on kids and give them a proper voice in parliament.

    Seriously, why not? It would be great for democracy.

    Because the governance of our country is a serious matter and putting the franchise in the hands of people whose brains haven't fully formed is as idiotic an idea as Labour's energy policy.
    Not particularly my field but googling this up apparently our brains aren't finished fully forming until about age 25. That might sound like an argument for raising the voting age, but apparently mental performance starts measurably declining at 27, so if we're going to be basing it on this stuff it's going to mean a serious narrowing of the franchise.
    And some people's brains never finish forming. I won't embarrass OGH by naming names, but there are at least 10 I can think of in the current shadow cabinet who appear to be either lobotomised or have stunted brain development, judging by the inanity of their policy proposals.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    More anomolous is that Commonwealth citizens can vote but other nationalities. One million Commonwealth citizens can vote, even recent arrivals. Either restrict the vote to British citizens, or extend it to other foreigners with permanent settlement rights.

    Make it an issue of equity imo. We will permit resident citizens of countries which allow resident Britons to vote in their national elections, to vote in the UK national elections. Since there isn't the slightest chance of most of the commonwealth giving the vote to citizens of the old colonial master, the problem will largely sort itself out ;-)
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693


    I'm not sure what age kids need to be to avoid the risk that they'll do what their parents tell them: 16 seems very safe, and probably way too cautious. Maybe people with teenage kids can advise?

    Does it actually matter if a proportion of kids vote as their parents tell them to?

    It wouldn't affect the overall result, presumably.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited December 2014
    Pong said:


    I'm not sure what age kids need to be to avoid the risk that they'll do what their parents tell them: 16 seems very safe, and probably way too cautious. Maybe people with teenage kids can advise?

    Does it actually matter if a proportion of kids vote as their parents tell them to?

    It wouldn't affect the overall result, presumably.
    Not sure that people would be happy with some parent getting de facto two votes when they only get one. One person one vote, unless you brought your kids up to do as they were told...

    How can it not affect the overall result. Hypothetical marginal constituency, one vote in it, kid wants to vote Labour, but his Dad tells him the family expects him to vote Conservative. That just swung the seat, and potentially the election.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,709
    Just blooked at the voting registration form. The new bit is that it requires one’s National Insurance number.
    Being an old fart I can’t recall when I was issued with one of those. It might of been when I had my first official job ..... at 17 when working on the Christmas post during the school holidays ...... or 19 when I started articles. When does one get it?
    The form says that if the applicant hasn’t got one, the office will contact them about a different form of ID check, but, ominously, that it may take longer to deal with the application.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,730
    DavidL said:

    Voter registration under the new system is a lot more hassle. My daughter who voted and was active in the referendum has not managed it yet. She is interested in politics and her parents are encouraging her so she will get around to it in time for the election but I do wonder how many won't. The new system risks a generation who are disengaged from the system and never learn to vote.

    We will be able to test this quite precisely in Scotland which probably had the most complete and up to date electoral register in the world in September. If there are tens of thousands no longer on the register in May that will be a disgrace. I fear that is exactly what we will see.

    I think if we are going to have single registration then there should be a responsibility on the educational establishment the young person is attending to assist in registration and to push for it. Our whole system is already grossly biased in favour of oldies and the effect on public policy and spending is there for all to see. We must not go further down the same path.

    I agree. It's also extraordinarily wasteful. Because I have recently moved into a new house, despite living alone I had five invitations to register to vote. Previously, I would have received one form with the previous occupiers' names on it, and gone online to delete them and add my own. Three minutes. Now, however...

    I left some very negative feedback at the end of the cumbersome and complex process, which didn't work very well. I can see why people were worried about disenfranchisement and forcible registering for postal votes that were then misused, but I see no evidence that this system has more useful or meaningful security checks to override that (indeed, rather the contrary given it's a box-ticking exercise) while making everyone else jump through needless hoops.
  • Indigo said:

    I'm not sure what age kids need to be to avoid the risk that they'll do what their parents tell them: 16 seems very safe, and probably way too cautious. Maybe people with teenage kids can advise?

    I am not sure its safe to make that assumption at all. We have seen evidence from postal voting investigations that even adults in some households, especially those from more traditional and patriarchal cultures will vote according to the wishes of the head of the household. Surprised it doesn't happen in Japan, certainly happens here.

    To be more precise there aren't going to be zero instances for either children or adults, so the question is whether there are disproportionately more people voting on other people's instructions in the 16-18 and 14-16 groups respectively, and if so whether it would happen at an unacceptably large scale.

    You might also want to treat postal and proxy votes differently for kids, bearing in mind that:
    1) If they're already in school it's less valuable in improving access.
    2) Kids are potentially more subject to bribery and coertion than adults.

    PS My favourite solution here is to share a secret in a controlled environment like the school, then use that shared secret to do a secret-ballot-in-plain-sight by computer, such that somebody can watch you vote but still won't know how you voted. Once they're trained in that they can do secret online voting for the rest of their lives.
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    edited December 2014
    All those youth voting intention figures reflect is that the social studies lefties that comprehensive schools are infested with have done their job well. In fact theyv'e done their job too well and many of those 18-22 year olds who do vote will waste their vote on the Green Party instead of Labour, thus splitting the left wing vote and helping the Tories and UKIP.
  • Pong said:


    I'm not sure what age kids need to be to avoid the risk that they'll do what their parents tell them: 16 seems very safe, and probably way too cautious. Maybe people with teenage kids can advise?

    Does it actually matter if a proportion of kids vote as their parents tell them to?

    It wouldn't affect the overall result, presumably.
    Over-represents parents compared to non-parents.
  • I'm against Votes4Kidz, if only because the words "as a mother..." at the start of any political statement are irritating enough already.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,730

    Just blooked at the voting registration form. The new bit is that it requires one’s National Insurance number.
    Being an old fart I can’t recall when I was issued with one of those. It might of been when I had my first official job ..... at 17 when working on the Christmas post during the school holidays ...... or 19 when I started articles. When does one get it?
    The form says that if the applicant hasn’t got one, the office will contact them about a different form of ID check, but, ominously, that it may take longer to deal with the application.

    It's normally issued at age 14, through schools. You should have it on any pay slip or tax return (or pension slip, depending on age and circumstance).

    Obviously, I don't know your circumstances, but it would be pretty unusual for you not to have any record of it.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited December 2014
    Indigo said:

    More anomolous is that Commonwealth citizens can vote but other nationalities. One million Commonwealth citizens can vote, even recent arrivals. Either restrict the vote to British citizens, or extend it to other foreigners with permanent settlement rights.

    Make it an issue of equity imo. We will permit resident citizens of countries which allow resident Britons to vote in their national elections, to vote in the UK national elections. Since there isn't the slightest chance of most of the commonwealth giving the vote to citizens of the old colonial master, the problem will largely sort itself out ;-)
    The number of British citizens without dual nationality in India, Pakistan and Nigeria (the 3 biggest Commonwealth populations) must be vanishingly small. I think only Ireland Jamaica and a few islands give reciprocal rights.

    It would mean that permanent immigrant populations in the UK would have to take the citizenship test if they want to vote. Right and proper! A Greek colleague of mine takes it shortly. Despite living in the UK for a decade and having a British spouse he has learnt a lot by studying for the test.

    It was recommended in 2007 by the Goldsmith report commissioned by Labour, but strangely not acted upon...

    http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/11.29
  • DavidL said:

    Voter registration under the new system is a lot more hassle. My daughter who voted and was active in the referendum has not managed it yet. She is interested in politics and her parents are encouraging her so she will get around to it in time for the election but I do wonder how many won't. The new system risks a generation who are disengaged from the system and never learn to vote.

    We will be able to test this quite precisely in Scotland which probably had the most complete and up to date electoral register in the world in September. If there are tens of thousands no longer on the register in May that will be a disgrace. I fear that is exactly what we will see.

    I think if we are going to have single registration then there should be a responsibility on the educational establishment the young person is attending to assist in registration and to push for it. Our whole system is already grossly biased in favour of oldies and the effect on public policy and spending is there for all to see. We must not go further down the same path.

    I'm glad its more hassle. Voting is an important civic duty and registering for it should not be something that is like picking apples from a tree.

    If someone cannot be bothered or fnd the time to register it is perhaps better for society if they don't vote anyway.

    If I had my way you would have to pass an examination, the political equivalent of the driving theory test, before being allowed to vote.
  • DavidL said:

    In Scotland that is easy. 16 is the age of majority, not 18, albeit with certain safeguards.

    Until very recently it was also the age at which you had to make a choice between entering the world of work or continuing education, a far more serious decision for the individual concerned than who to vote for. With education now being compulsory until 18 I accept that argument has got weaker although significant numbers will go down the apprenticeship route at 16.

    I would accept the age is always arbitrary to some degree but I think there is a strong case for 16.

    My researches have been cursory, but the Age of Majority (Scotland) Act 1969, s.1(1) is still in force, providing:
    As from the date on which this Act comes into force a person shall attain majority on attaining the age of eighteen instead of on attaining the age of twenty-one; and a person shall attain majority on that date if he has then already attained the age of eighteen but not the age of twenty-one.
    16 and 17 year olds still cannot vote nor serve as jurors in solemn proceedings. Is a contract entered into by a sixteen year old not voidable at his own instance?

    As per the link in Fluffy's post (I don't bother trying to decipher the words) Japan dropped the voting age to 18, but IIUC the official age of majority is still 20. I think these things tend to be pretty random.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited December 2014
    ydoethur said:

    ... but I see no evidence that this system has more useful or meaningful security checks to override that (indeed, rather the contrary given it's a box-ticking exercise) while making everyone else jump through needless hoops.

    Its like most security the government does (outside the security services), its meant to give the appearance of security, deterring malcontents, and making the general public feel safer, all for the minimum possibly expenditure... see airline security, if people were serious about it they would follow the example set by El Al, but they are not, they just want to look like they are. Bruce Schneier calls it Security Theatre https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2010/11/a_waste_of_money_and.html
  • Good morning, everyone.

    The idea of giving parents extra votes is barking mad.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,730

    All those youth figures reflect is that the social studies lefties that comprehensive schools are infested with have done their job well. In fact theyv'e done their job too well and many of those 18-22 year olds who do vote will waste their vote on the Green Party instead of Labour, thus splitting the left wing vote and helping the Tories and UKIP.

    'If you are not a Liberal at twenty, you have no soul. If you are not a Tory at forty, you have no brain'.

    Winston Churchill.

    In a way it's true. Younger people who have little stake in society and who are supported by others can afford to think how nice a perfect world would be, and think it will be lovely and easy to achieve and only cost everyone a very little bit each. But when they get older and start to think about their own children, and their mortgage, and their energy bills, they start to worry about themselves more, and realise they don't have 'a little bit' to spare without causing themselves some actual hardship.

    Cf John O'Farrell. 'When we were younger, we all agreed the better off should pay higher taxes. These days, when we meet, we still agree on that, but then there's a pause before we all nervously agree that 'the better off' earn about five grand a year more than we do.'
  • Just blooked at the voting registration form. The new bit is that it requires one’s National Insurance number.
    Being an old fart I can’t recall when I was issued with one of those. It might of been when I had my first official job ..... at 17 when working on the Christmas post during the school holidays ...... or 19 when I started articles. When does one get it?
    The form says that if the applicant hasn’t got one, the office will contact them about a different form of ID check, but, ominously, that it may take longer to deal with the application.

    After you reach 16 (although it may not be issued until after April)? Summinck like that back in 'Eightie-Four anyhoos....
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,730
    Indigo said:


    Its like most security the government does (outside the security services), its meant to give the appearance of security, deterring malcontents, and making the general public feel safer, all for the minimum possibly expenditure... see airline security, if people were serious about it they would follow the example set by El Al, but they are not, they just want to look like they are. Bruce Schneier calls it Security Theatre https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2010/11/a_waste_of_money_and.html

    Agreed. If they were serious, they would have voter compliance officers. But they cost money - quite a lot of money, probably, given the nature of the job.

    Incidentally, I think I may have accidentally flagged your comment while clicking on the 'Quote' button - if so I apologise, that was certainly not my intention.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    ydoethur said:

    All those youth figures reflect is that the social studies lefties that comprehensive schools are infested with have done their job well. In fact theyv'e done their job too well and many of those 18-22 year olds who do vote will waste their vote on the Green Party instead of Labour, thus splitting the left wing vote and helping the Tories and UKIP.

    'If you are not a Liberal at twenty, you have no soul. If you are not a Tory at forty, you have no brain'.

    Winston Churchill.

    In a way it's true. Younger people who have little stake in society and who are supported by others can afford to think how nice a perfect world would be, and think it will be lovely and easy to achieve and only cost everyone a very little bit each. But when they get older and start to think about their own children, and their mortgage, and their energy bills, they start to worry about themselves more, and realise they don't have 'a little bit' to spare without causing themselves some actual hardship.

    Cf John O'Farrell. 'When we were younger, we all agreed the better off should pay higher taxes. These days, when we meet, we still agree on that, but then there's a pause before we all nervously agree that 'the better off' earn about five grand a year more than we do.'
    I do not think there is any evidence that Churchill made such a statement. Not least because he was a Tory as a teen and a Liberal in his late 30's!

    If you read the poll the youths are not radical. Most favour the monarchy, marriage and cutting spending to cut the deficit. They are more pro EU and pro Green but their politics are more nuanced than your rather cliched misquotation.
  • ydoethur said:

    ...Incidentally, I think I may have accidentally flagged your comment while clicking on the 'Quote' button - if so I apologise, that was certainly not my intention.

    You can unflag a flagged comment by flagging the unintentionally flagged comment to unflag it (or some such).
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    Meaningless unless broken down by ethnicity. Romney won the white youth vote but lost the youth vote overwhelming due to demographic change due to immigration policies. All this I expect shows is the Conservatives will be doomed if they don't reverse immigration flows.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,221
    It would be quite interesting to see the share of the vote among first time voters from the 2010 election and to see how they've changed since 2010.

    No doubt we'll get the sob stories on election day of the kiddies not being able to vote because they haven't registered. I'm guessing there will be quite a big TV and radio advertising campaign over the next few months to tell people that they have to register and how to do it.
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    edited December 2014
    No, an attempt to correct the perjorative media coverage that pro tory newspapers are providing, no doubt, I suspect, at CCHQs request.

    Sadly for UKIP, they don't have the resources to employ large numbers of people to comb through the media for every racist comment by a minor tory official in little dunny on the wold town council and don't have several national newspapers in their pockets to publicise such comments prominently.

    Whatever you think of UKIP if they continue to rise they will inevtitably destroy the Tory party by making it statistically unelectable, which I would have thought most people would welcome.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited December 2014
    FalseFlag said:

    Meaningless unless broken down by ethnicity. Romney won the white youth vote but lost the youth vote overwhelming due to demographic change due to immigration policies. All this I expect shows is the Conservatives will be doomed if they don't reverse immigration flows.

    And Labour... as we saw a couple of days ago Labour are hemorrhaging their ethnic voters because (ironically) Labour are seen as too soft on immigration. I dont know what Labour is thinking of to be honest, they increase immigration from lots of countries with socially conservative cultures, often with a much higher value put on religion than is usual in the UK, and expects them to be long term Labour voters.... The evidence is that second and third generation immigrants tend to be more conservative than their parents, not less. If immigration continues, the future is conservative, not liberal (which means metro elite tories are screwed).
  • FalseFlag said:

    Meaningless unless broken down by ethnicity. Romney won the white youth vote but lost the youth vote overwhelming due to demographic change due to immigration policies. All this I expect shows is the Conservatives will be doomed if they don't reverse immigration flows.

    Do you have a source for your claim about the immigration angle? He lost by a small margin among young whites but then won by a huge crushing margin among young blacks - presumably most young black Americans aren't recent immigrants, and I'm not sure you even have to count the young Hispanics for him to win the demographic, let alone filter that down to recent immigrants.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,730



    I do not think there is any evidence that Churchill made such a statement. Not least because he was a Tory as a teen and a Liberal in his late 30's!

    If you read the poll the youths are not radical. Most favour the monarchy, marriage and cutting spending to cut the deficit. They are more pro EU and pro Green but their politics are more nuanced than your rather cliched misquotation.

    True, it is disputed and I should have added 'attributed.' However, I would suggest that merely because Churchill was a member of the Unionist coalition does not mean that he was in any way a mainstream Conservative. He considered himself a Whiggish member of the party, and indeed his writings of the time (which I have studied, before you ask) reveal a genuine radicalism - much more so than his father, who was the real reason Churchill started out among the Conservatives.

    Most younger people wouldn't see making the world perfect, incidentally, as being 'radical' - they would see it as being 'sensible.' I appreciate it may not look that way to those of us who have to live in it, but it takes time and experience to shape views.

    On the precise subject of the voting age, I'm not an advocate for lowering it. Indeed, if anything I would raise it, but that would be even less practicable. For a rare, one-off event like Scotland, the arguments were a bit different. In my experience, which I appreciate is anecdotal, compulsory mock elections in schools are more useful in sorting through the issues and at least trying to inculcate civic responsibility.
  • Incidentally, the strong hostility of this age group towards Nigel Farage and UKIP is likely to make itself known within family groups in the run-up to the general election. No doubt some parents will soften this hostility through patient argument, but I wonder whether we might see some parents equally influenced to some extent by their children's perspectives.
  • Indigo said:

    FalseFlag said:

    Meaningless unless broken down by ethnicity. Romney won the white youth vote but lost the youth vote overwhelming due to demographic change due to immigration policies. All this I expect shows is the Conservatives will be doomed if they don't reverse immigration flows.

    And Labour... as we saw a couple of days ago Labour are hemorrhaging their ethnic voters because (ironically) Labour are seen as too soft on immigration. I dont know what Labour is thinking of to be honest, they increase immigration from lots of countries with socially conservative cultures, often with a much higher value put on religion than is usual in the UK, and expects them to be long term Labour voters.... The evidence is that second and third generation immigrants tend to be more conservative than their parents, not less. If immigration continues, the future is conservative, not liberal (which means metro elite tories are screwed).
    I think you have got that slightly wrong.

    Labour are hemorrhaging their ethnic voters because said ethnic minorities are horrified at their social liberalism (of which their support for Gay Marriage and subsequent sacking of several regristrars from ethnic minorities is the most obvious manifestation)

    Labour are hemorrhaging their white working class voters due to both being soft on immigration and the social liberalism too in some cases.

    Either way you are right, the metro elite of both Labour and Tories have had it long term.

  • DavidL said:

    Voter registration under the new system is a lot more hassle. My daughter who voted and was active in the referendum has not managed it yet. She is interested in politics and her parents are encouraging her so she will get around to it in time for the election but I do wonder how many won't. The new system risks a generation who are disengaged from the system and never learn to vote.

    We will be able to test this quite precisely in Scotland which probably had the most complete and up to date electoral register in the world in September. If there are tens of thousands no longer on the register in May that will be a disgrace. I fear that is exactly what we will see.

    I think if we are going to have single registration then there should be a responsibility on the educational establishment the young person is attending to assist in registration and to push for it. Our whole system is already grossly biased in favour of oldies and the effect on public policy and spending is there for all to see. We must not go further down the same path.

    I'm glad its more hassle. Voting is an important civic duty and registering for it should not be something that is like picking apples from a tree.

    If someone cannot be bothered or fnd the time to register it is perhaps better for society if they don't vote anyway.

    If I had my way you would have to pass an examination, the political equivalent of the driving theory test, before being allowed to vote.
    Lucky for us, then.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    I think a NI No is created virtually at birth, they just don't give it to you till you need it at 16.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited December 2014

    Indigo said:

    FalseFlag said:

    Meaningless unless broken down by ethnicity. Romney won the white youth vote but lost the youth vote overwhelming due to demographic change due to immigration policies. All this I expect shows is the Conservatives will be doomed if they don't reverse immigration flows.

    And Labour... as we saw a couple of days ago Labour are hemorrhaging their ethnic voters because (ironically) Labour are seen as too soft on immigration. I dont know what Labour is thinking of to be honest, they increase immigration from lots of countries with socially conservative cultures, often with a much higher value put on religion than is usual in the UK, and expects them to be long term Labour voters.... The evidence is that second and third generation immigrants tend to be more conservative than their parents, not less. If immigration continues, the future is conservative, not liberal (which means metro elite tories are screwed).
    I think you have got that slightly wrong.

    Labour are hemorrhaging their ethnic voters because said ethnic minorities are horrified at their social liberalism (of which their support for Gay Marriage and subsequent sacking of several regristrars from ethnic minorities is the most obvious manifestation)

    Labour are hemorrhaging their white working class voters due to both being soft on immigration and the social liberalism too in some cases.

    Either way you are right, the metro elite of both Labour and Tories have had it long term.

    You have to love this bit

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11294984/Labours-crucial-ethnic-minority-vote-set-to-collapse.html
    However Dr Sobolewska says that although the Tories believe many BME voters should be "natural 'small c' Conservatives" they have had little luck winning over any of the voters leaving the Labour party.

    She told the conference: "The Conservatives have been trying to win some of this vote because they think that ethnic minorities are natural small 'c' Conservatives.
    Seems the Conservative Party doesn't seem to have noticed that it hasn't been small 'c' conservative for a while, and its infact small 'l' liberal, hence their problem with attracting these voters.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,709
    edited December 2014
    ydoethur said:

    Just blooked at the voting registration form. The new bit is that it requires one’s National Insurance number.
    Being an old fart I can’t recall when I was issued with one of those. It might of been when I had my first official job ..... at 17 when working on the Christmas post during the school holidays ...... or 19 when I started articles. When does one get it?
    The form says that if the applicant hasn’t got one, the office will contact them about a different form of ID check, but, ominously, that it may take longer to deal with the application.

    It's normally issued at age 14, through schools. You should have it on any pay slip or tax return (or pension slip, depending on age and circumstance).

    Obviously, I don't know your circumstances, but it would be pretty unusual for you not to have any record of it.
    Oh, I’ve got it OK. It’s on everything I’ve had (I think) from HMRC. It’s just that I couldn’t remember when it was first issued.
    It’s almost 60 years ago now, but thinking about it, it must have been when I worked on the Christmas post. I had to pay tax, too, but got it back aftwerwards.
    Excellent experience, although the guy I shared the walk with made sure he went to the houses where he would get a drink. Did get some tips, though! We did a Christmas Day delivery, too.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262

    DavidL said:

    Voter registration under the new system is a lot more hassle. My daughter who voted and was active in the referendum has not managed it yet. She is interested in politics and her parents are encouraging her so she will get around to it in time for the election but I do wonder how many won't. The new system risks a generation who are disengaged from the system and never learn to vote.

    We will be able to test this quite precisely in Scotland which probably had the most complete and up to date electoral register in the world in September. If there are tens of thousands no longer on the register in May that will be a disgrace. I fear that is exactly what we will see.

    I think if we are going to have single registration then there should be a responsibility on the educational establishment the young person is attending to assist in registration and to push for it. Our whole system is already grossly biased in favour of oldies and the effect on public policy and spending is there for all to see. We must not go further down the same path.

    I'm glad its more hassle. Voting is an important civic duty and registering for it should not be something that is like picking apples from a tree.

    If someone cannot be bothered or fnd the time to register it is perhaps better for society if they don't vote anyway.

    If I had my way you would have to pass an examination, the political equivalent of the driving theory test, before being allowed to vote.
    Lucky for us, then.
    Ironically, a test would likely weed out a number of thick white males with unsavoury views.
  • Indigo said:

    Indigo said:

    FalseFlag said:

    Meaningless unless broken down by ethnicity. Romney won the white youth vote but lost the youth vote overwhelming due to demographic change due to immigration policies. All this I expect shows is the Conservatives will be doomed if they don't reverse immigration flows.

    And Labour... as we saw a couple of days ago Labour are hemorrhaging their ethnic voters because (ironically) Labour are seen as too soft on immigration. I dont know what Labour is thinking of to be honest, they increase immigration from lots of countries with socially conservative cultures, often with a much higher value put on religion than is usual in the UK, and expects them to be long term Labour voters.... The evidence is that second and third generation immigrants tend to be more conservative than their parents, not less. If immigration continues, the future is conservative, not liberal (which means metro elite tories are screwed).
    I think you have got that slightly wrong.

    Labour are hemorrhaging their ethnic voters because said ethnic minorities are horrified at their social liberalism (of which their support for Gay Marriage and subsequent sacking of several regristrars from ethnic minorities is the most obvious manifestation)

    Labour are hemorrhaging their white working class voters due to both being soft on immigration and the social liberalism too in some cases.

    Either way you are right, the metro elite of both Labour and Tories have had it long term.

    You have to love this bit

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11294984/Labours-crucial-ethnic-minority-vote-set-to-collapse.html
    However Dr Sobolewska says that although the Tories believe many BME voters should be "natural 'small c' Conservatives" they have had little luck winning over any of the voters leaving the Labour party.

    She told the conference: "The Conservatives have been trying to win some of this vote because they think that ethnic minorities are natural small 'c' Conservatives.
    Seems the Conservative Party doesn't seem to have noticed that it hasn't been small 'c' conservative for a while, and its infact small 'l' liberal, hence their problem with attracting these voters.

    What a wonderful find. And correct analysis of it by yourself.

    I don't think they realise how many people put moral (ie social) considerations first and economic considerations second, for the simple reason that a candidate that is morally degenerate or unworthy is not worth consideration - whatever their economic views, and in any case cannot be trusted to implement those economic views if at any point it no longer suits them to do so.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,016

    DavidL said:

    In Scotland that is easy. 16 is the age of majority, not 18, albeit with certain safeguards.

    Until very recently it was also the age at which you had to make a choice between entering the world of work or continuing education, a far more serious decision for the individual concerned than who to vote for. With education now being compulsory until 18 I accept that argument has got weaker although significant numbers will go down the apprenticeship route at 16.

    I would accept the age is always arbitrary to some degree but I think there is a strong case for 16.

    My researches have been cursory, but the Age of Majority (Scotland) Act 1969, s.1(1) is still in force, providing:
    As from the date on which this Act comes into force a person shall attain majority on attaining the age of eighteen instead of on attaining the age of twenty-one; and a person shall attain majority on that date if he has then already attained the age of eighteen but not the age of twenty-one.
    16 and 17 year olds still cannot vote nor serve as jurors in solemn proceedings. Is a contract entered into by a sixteen year old not voidable at his own instance?

    You are a bit out of date. Look at the age of legal capacity (S)act 1991. It made the age of majority 16 with certain safeguards by which the young person could apply to the court before the age of 21 to have an unfair confract set aside. In more than 20 years I have only ever come across such an application once and I think it would be fair to say it is more theoretical than real.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited December 2014
    As (Labour supporter) Nick Hewer said yesterday:
    'They're a hopeless bunch. I've met Miliband and shook his hand, and from that moment I knew he was a no-hoper. Tall, arrogant, floppy, weak, wet handshake.
  • Pong said:

    GeoffM said:

    Pong said:

    GeoffM said:

    There are more taxes than those on income. VAT, for example. Your argument applies to 18 year olds too. Should we be looking to raise the voting age?

    A franchise based on property ownership would work nicely.
    Seriously?
    Yes, why not? It's very sensible. Reduces the franchise to individuals who have put a bit of effort in - or their families have.

    Certainly beats letting toddlers vote for politicians who promise Free Nappies For All (paid for by a bankers bonus tax)
    Sorry, I assumed your comment was tongue in cheek. Easy mistake to make.

    I swear the average PB'er is a 70 year old white male 'kipper...

    Shall we discuss grammar schools?

    :)

    Seems like Geoff wants to disenfranchise large parts of the white working class that he claims to care so much about. Bless him.

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Indigo said:

    As (Labour supporter) Nick Hewer said yesterday:
    'They're a hopeless bunch. I've met Miliband and shook his hand, and from that moment I knew he was a no-hoper. Tall, arrogant, floppy, weak, wet handshake.
    The wet limp handshake is the killer, everyone I have ever met who has had one has proved to be a dud.
  • Mr. Root, I simply don't get the limp-wristed wet handshake. Gripping something isn't exactly difficult (unless you've got some sort of muscle problem).
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    edited December 2014

    The wet limp handshake is the killer, everyone I have ever met who has had one has proved to be a dud.

    Hmmm,

    I try to be gentle when shaking-hands.: One interview-seminar I went on found the recipient of such a hand-shake describing it as 'bone-crushing'. I really don't understand why....
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,034

    Mr. Root, I simply don't get the limp-wristed wet handshake. Gripping something isn't exactly difficult (unless you've got some sort of muscle problem).

    It's terrible when you 'miss' when grabbing the other persons hand. Happened many a time to me.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    The wet limp handshake is the killer, everyone I have ever met who has had one has proved to be a dud.

    Hmmm,

    I try to be gentle when shaking-hands.: One interview-seminar I went on found the recipient of such a hand-shake describing it as 'bone-crushing'. I really don't understand why....


    Just ask what David Copperfield felt about Uriah Heep's handshake. He spotted a wrong'un immediately!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,709
    Indigo said:

    As (Labour supporter) Nick Hewer said yesterday:
    'They're a hopeless bunch. I've met Miliband and shook his hand, and from that moment I knew he was a no-hoper. Tall, arrogant, floppy, weak, wet handshake.
    It would have saved a lot of trouble and expense on "The Apprentice” if Nick Hewer had just shaken everyone’s hand and made his decision that way!
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    Indigo said:

    FalseFlag said:

    Meaningless unless broken down by ethnicity. Romney won the white youth vote but lost the youth vote overwhelming due to demographic change due to immigration policies. All this I expect shows is the Conservatives will be doomed if they don't reverse immigration flows.

    And Labour... as we saw a couple of days ago Labour are hemorrhaging their ethnic voters because (ironically) Labour are seen as too soft on immigration. I dont know what Labour is thinking of to be honest, they increase immigration from lots of countries with socially conservative cultures, often with a much higher value put on religion than is usual in the UK, and expects them to be long term Labour voters.... The evidence is that second and third generation immigrants tend to be more conservative than their parents, not less. If immigration continues, the future is conservative, not liberal (which means metro elite tories are screwed).
    I think you have got that slightly wrong.

    Labour are hemorrhaging their ethnic voters because said ethnic minorities are horrified at their social liberalism (of which their support for Gay Marriage and subsequent sacking of several regristrars from ethnic minorities is the most obvious manifestation)

    Labour are hemorrhaging their white working class voters due to both being soft on immigration and the social liberalism too in some cases.

    Either way you are right, the metro elite of both Labour and Tories have had it long term.

    It would be interesting to see where those voters are going.

    Playing around with the BES data thingamy, non-white voters don't appear to be a significant chunk of any party's support.

    http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/graph/?id=655#.VJ_S9rgAA
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    Someone might like to make The Mail aware that the election isn't just over five months away. It is even worse than that for Ed. It is just over four months away. With the campaign starting in three...
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited December 2014

    Indigo said:

    As (Labour supporter) Nick Hewer said yesterday:
    'They're a hopeless bunch. I've met Miliband and shook his hand, and from that moment I knew he was a no-hoper. Tall, arrogant, floppy, weak, wet handshake.
    It would have saved a lot of trouble and expense on "The Apprentice” if Nick Hewer had just shaken everyone’s hand and made his decision that way!

    ;)

    How did he become leader?? The Labour grandees must have known, the Unions must have known. Ed has shaken a lot of hands..
This discussion has been closed.