I guess there are two reasons to oppose 16 and 17 year olds getting a vote in the referendum. Firstly, on principle - you think they are too young and immature to participate. Secondly, you are an Outer, and think they will vote In. Of those PBers arguing against them voting, who is in which camp?
I am strongly of the object in principle camp. As another example of this it is obvious that PR would benefit the party I generally support. But again I oppose it on principle irrespective of how it would help UKIP.
The voting age is also the age at which we allow people to enter into contracts and I do wonder how many of those advocating lowering the age of voting would also be happy to enter into a serious financial contract with a 16 year old or gave them sit in judgement on them in court?
Mr. Carnyx, does it? The only change, so far as I know, was for the Scottish vote because the SNP tried to fiddle it to their advantage.
It's an especially obtuse perspective to criticise the same electorate being eligible for the referendum as can vote in the General Election.
Before the Referendum, votes at 16 were supported by the Scottish Liberal Democrats, Scottish Greens, SSP and the SNP, the extension of the franchise is long standing SNP policy.
Since the Referendum, votes at 16 are now also supported by the Scottish Conservative and Unionists and Scottish Labour.
We now face the bizarre spectacle that an entire cohort of citizens who will vote in the Holyrood 2016 election (on current plans) disenfranchised.
That's before even considering that an individual who has been elected to the Holyrood parliament will also be disenfranchised by the current proposals.
Nigel Owens has been named ref for the Guinness Pro 12 Final.
I would pile on Munster
Worst ref in the world.
I'd rather have Steve Walsh ref an England match.
I tried rewatching the 2009 Ireland-France match recently, where Nigel didn't award a penalty against Ireland until something like 30 mins into the second half, and couldn't last past 20 minutes so total was his bias in favour of Ireland.
He allows Irish sides to lie all over the ball and elbow jackal. there's nothing you can do in the face of that.
Fun fact: up until 2012-13 Munster had never lost a game in Europe that Owens had reffed (bar matches to other Irish teams).
Danny565 About 60% of Labour voters want to stay in the EU according to most polls, Tories are split about 40-45% Out, 35-40% In
Well, that other 40% is pretty sizeable Plus, even for many working-class Labour supporters who would maybe vote to stay in the EU, it still would make Labour look a little...weird if the party was focussing most of its energies on that over what people would see as the more important issues.
Mr. Dair, I am not especially concerned by the opinion of the Scottish Lib Dems, or any of those other parties.
If Scottish parties want to have a daft policy in Scotland, that's up to them.
There's nothing daft about the policy at all, it is both sensible and worthwhile with positive long term benefits and little, if any, downside.
Voting is one of the weakest decision processes that citizens make because the individual vote is ameliorated by 40 million other votes, balancing out the possible unwanted effect of people who may be too senile, too corrupt, too stupid or too immature. It is an ideal way to introduce individuals to the social contract and establish a participatory framework for life.
There is no magic light which switched on when someone reaches 18, what should matter is whether a cohort engages and considers the decision they are making. We have clear evidence from the Scottish Referendum that the 16 and 17 year old cohort was by far the most engaged and involved in the process. We also have pretty good evidence that the most elderly cohort was the least engaged, voting purely as a habit and without consideration for the consequences of their action.
British Society could use a proper, full discussion over age requirements in all areas, from voting to the age of consent to the age of participation in armed forces to the age of social decision making (such as alcohol and tobacco). Of course Britain won't do this and at least a few of those areas are taboo for open discussion. But voting, given its weak impact and risk free nature should not be one of those.
Just because the SNP government in Scotland decided to fix their try and fix their referendum because they thought more 16 and 17 year old's would vote for Independence, is certainly no reason to allow the same to happen in the EU referendum.
The voting age is 18 for good reason and we should not be changing it - and that goes for all elections not just the Referendum.
The electorate who votes on the referendum should be the same as for the general election - ie the same electorate that voted in the current Govt. that had this as a manifesto commitment. Anyone who has a differing opinion should be politely listened to. And then told to STFU. HoL included.
You know, I sometimes get the impression that Marquee Mark belongs to the authoritarian wing of the Conservative Party.
Mr. Carnyx, does it? The only change, so far as I know, was for the Scottish vote because the SNP tried to fiddle it to their advantage.
It's an especially obtuse perspective to criticise the same electorate being eligible for the referendum as can vote in the General Election.
Before the Referendum, votes at 16 were supported by the Scottish Liberal Democrats, Scottish Greens, SSP and the SNP, the extension of the franchise is long standing SNP policy.
Since the Referendum, votes at 16 are now also supported by the Scottish Conservative and Unionists and Scottish Labour.
We now face the bizarre spectacle that an entire cohort of citizens who will vote in the Holyrood 2016 election (on current plans) disenfranchised.
That's before even considering that an individual who has been elected to the Holyrood parliament will also be disenfranchised by the current proposals.
You cannot be disenfranchised if you don't currently have the vote.
In any case, are those who can vote at the moment in one election but not another 'disenfranchised'? The logic of your argument is all tail-wagging-dog: as soon as one person has a vote in one election, they must then automatically have one in every other one. Even more so given that the original initiative arose in one relatively small part of the country.
Given how young people are increasingly infantilized in my opinion, I find the extension of voting rights to 16/17 year olds suspect to say the least, and I do not support it. Nevertheless, I find the title of this thread hard to dispute - agree with permitting 16/17 year olds to vote or not, if they were allowed to for that referendum, on what basis can they be refused on another, or for Westminster elections? Ok, a mistake does not bind you forever, but I don't recall that much outrage at 16-17 year olds voting in the IndyRef, so it's harder to argue how wrong it was and not allow it again.
Given how young people are increasingly infantilized in my opinion, I find the extension of voting rights to 16/17 year olds suspect to say the least, and I do not support it.
The problem with that argument is that much of our society is increasingly infantilized. By the same logic we could remove the franchise from people who don't own property or pay income tax.
I guess there are two reasons to oppose 16 and 17 year olds getting a vote in the referendum. Firstly, on principle - you think they are too young and immature to participate. Secondly, you are an Outer, and think they will vote In. Of those PBers arguing against them voting, who is in which camp?
I am strongly of the object in principle camp. As another example of this it is obvious that PR would benefit the party I generally support. But again I oppose it on principle irrespective of how it would help UKIP.
The voting age is also the age at which we allow people to enter into contracts and I do wonder how many of those advocating lowering the age of voting would also be happy to enter into a serious financial contract with a 16 year old or gave them sit in judgement on them in court?
A little more consistency over what "the age of majority" is, is probably needed, but the way I look at it is this:
If you aren't old enough to get drink, or get married (without permission), or leave school: then you're probably not old enough to vote.
Given how young people are increasingly infantilized in my opinion, I find the extension of voting rights to 16/17 year olds suspect to say the least, and I do not support it.
The problem with that argument is that much of our society is increasingly infantilized. By the same logic we could remove the franchise from people who don't own property or pay income tax.
Given how young people are increasingly infantilized in my opinion, I find the extension of voting rights to 16/17 year olds suspect to say the least, and I do not support it. Nevertheless, I find the title of this thread hard to dispute - agree with permitting 16/17 year olds to vote or not, if they were allowed to for that referendum, on what basis can they be refused on another, or for Westminster elections? Ok, a mistake does not bind you forever, but I don't recall that much outrage at 16-17 year olds voting in the IndyRef, so it's harder to argue how wrong it was and not allow it again.
Isn't part of the argument that the SNP won a powerful democratic mandate to have input into the terms of the IndyRef, by winning a majority at Holyrood? Just as the Tories have a mandate for imposing (reasonable) terms in the Europe referendum they fought the GE on.
Given how young people are increasingly infantilized in my opinion, I find the extension of voting rights to 16/17 year olds suspect to say the least, and I do not support it. Nevertheless, I find the title of this thread hard to dispute - agree with permitting 16/17 year olds to vote or not, if they were allowed to for that referendum, on what basis can they be refused on another, or for Westminster elections? Ok, a mistake does not bind you forever, but I don't recall that much outrage at 16-17 year olds voting in the IndyRef, so it's harder to argue how wrong it was and not allow it again.
It was only allowed for the Indy referendum as that is what the Scottish Parliament wanted.
OK, Westminster let Scotland decide but it was entirely a Scottish decision.
Scotland is not the UK - just because Scotland is in favour of something does not mean it should apply to the whole of the UK.
If we assume: 100% Kippers Out, 40% Labour Out, 45% Conservative Out
then we comfortably above the 35% that the opinion polls (currently) find for out. And that before we even get to the BOO LibDems, the BOO Greens, and the BOO Nats.
So, I'm not sure your splits are accurate.
In any case, I think the biggest two determinants of the EU referendum will be:
1) Events 2) What the exact question is (with the great danger for Out being that it is the deceptively simple "Do you want the United Kingdom remain a part of the European Union?")
As an aside, while including EU citizens resident in the UK in the EU referendum would clearly be wrong, it seems bizarre that commonwealth citizens are allowed to vote.
Given how young people are increasingly infantilized in my opinion, I find the extension of voting rights to 16/17 year olds suspect to say the least, and I do not support it. Nevertheless, I find the title of this thread hard to dispute - agree with permitting 16/17 year olds to vote or not, if they were allowed to for that referendum, on what basis can they be refused on another, or for Westminster elections? Ok, a mistake does not bind you forever, but I don't recall that much outrage at 16-17 year olds voting in the IndyRef, so it's harder to argue how wrong it was and not allow it again.
It was only allowed for the Indy referendum as that is what the Scottish Parliament wanted.
OK, Westminster let Scotland decide but it was entirely a Scottish decision.
Scotland is not the UK - just because Scotland is in favour of something does not mean it should apply to the whole of the UK.
Yup, the SNP really wanted it. To not allow it would have created a fight. Sometimes it's easy to give them what they wanted. It was all about political calculation on their side. They figured that the youngsters would be more keen to vote for independence. If the figures showed the opposite it wouldnt have even been suggested.
It's all Real Politics. Its the pretending otherwise which is a bit nauseating.
Given how young people are increasingly infantilized in my opinion, I find the extension of voting rights to 16/17 year olds suspect to say the least, and I do not support it. Nevertheless, I find the title of this thread hard to dispute - agree with permitting 16/17 year olds to vote or not, if they were allowed to for that referendum, on what basis can they be refused on another, or for Westminster elections? Ok, a mistake does not bind you forever, but I don't recall that much outrage at 16-17 year olds voting in the IndyRef, so it's harder to argue how wrong it was and not allow it again.
Isn't part of the argument that the SNP won a powerful democratic mandate to have input into the terms of the IndyRef, by winning a majority at Holyrood? Just as the Tories have a mandate for imposing (reasonable) terms in the Europe referendum they fought the GE on.
They do, but having not kicked up that much of a fuss about the terms at one, I cannot see why the terms cannot be the same in that regard, even though I don't approve of it.
As an aside, while including EU citizens resident in the UK in the EU referendum would clearly be wrong, it seems bizarre that commonwealth citizens are allowed to vote.
But I guess that's just me...
The capacity for commonwealth citizens who reside here having *full* voting rights and equal ability to stand for local and national elections pre-dates our membership of the European Union.
I was one of those that I think @Carnyx was talking about who changed their position on the Indyref , started off agin the idea of 16-18 year olds voting and came out in favour.
A lot of this was in all honesty as a result of my daughter who got her first vote at 17 and played a full part in the referendum, canvassing, leafleting, attendance at TV debates and polling stations. Many of her friends took less interest but so many youngsters took part and contributed to the debate.
I think a Yes/No or In/Out issue is simpler in some ways than the full panoply of party politics. It is not a simple decision but it is a much more clear cut one. No tactical voting, no safe seats, I for one would find it hard to oppose.
"Aspiration! What the hell does that mean?' John Prescott lays into Labour leadership hopefuls"
Having two Jags not one. Simples John.
Aspiration = your wish to continue to spend other people's money like a drunken sailor on shore leave under the guise of predistribution while keeping the Jag not in use in a garage situated under your castle.
Given how young people are increasingly infantilized in my opinion, I find the extension of voting rights to 16/17 year olds suspect to say the least, and I do not support it. Nevertheless, I find the title of this thread hard to dispute - agree with permitting 16/17 year olds to vote or not, if they were allowed to for that referendum, on what basis can they be refused on another, or for Westminster elections? Ok, a mistake does not bind you forever, but I don't recall that much outrage at 16-17 year olds voting in the IndyRef, so it's harder to argue how wrong it was and not allow it again.
Isn't part of the argument that the SNP won a powerful democratic mandate to have input into the terms of the IndyRef, by winning a majority at Holyrood? Just as the Tories have a mandate for imposing (reasonable) terms in the Europe referendum they fought the GE on.
They do, but having not kicked up that much of a fuss about the terms at one, I cannot see why the terms cannot be the same in that regard, even though I don't approve of it.
The SNP clearly fought hard for 16/17, and the PM relented (perhaps as the polls at the time indicated it couldn't make a decisive difference). We are in a quite different ballgame now, and the political capital of Labour (and the LibDems) is at a low ebb. It does come down to Realpolitik.
Perversely, an Out vote by the UK but (within that) an In vote by Scotland would suit the SNP's objectives.
The clue to the EU referendum is the MORI Issues Index.
Europe scores very, very very low on which issues people believe are important.
People are not going to vote for what will be presented as a major change / risk on an issue that very few people see as important.
Of course all the anoraks will get incredibly excited about it - but if they want to win they need to get Europe up into the top 3 and preferably top 2 in the MORI Issues Index.
The composition of our electorate is fairly arbitrary and inconsistent in various respects. The exclusion of non-British EU nationals resident in Britain from a vote on Britain's membership of the EU is inevitable in practice, since they will be seen by most of the rest of the electorate as parti pris, whether fairly or unfairly. So we will have a different electorate from that used in the Scottish referendum.
If the vote takes place after 19 September 2016, no Scot who voted in the independence referendum will be excluded from voting in the EU referendum. Without tangible examples of the anomaly, it will be harder for advocates of younger voters to whip up opposition.
Personally, I can't get too excited either way on the point. If the vote is that much of a cliffhanger that their votes will prove decisive, the country will have far bigger problems ahead.
I guess there are two reasons to oppose 16 and 17 year olds getting a vote in the referendum. Firstly, on principle - you think they are too young and immature to participate. Secondly, you are an Outer, and think they will vote In. Of those PBers arguing against them voting, who is in which camp?
I am strongly of the object in principle camp. As another example of this it is obvious that PR would benefit the party I generally support. But again I oppose it on principle irrespective of how it would help UKIP.
The voting age is also the age at which we allow people to enter into contracts and I do wonder how many of those advocating lowering the age of voting would also be happy to enter into a serious financial contract with a 16 year old or gave them sit in judgement on them in court?
A little more consistency over what "the age of majority" is, is probably needed, but the way I look at it is this:
If you aren't old enough to get drink, or get married (without permission), or leave school: then you're probably not old enough to vote.
No-one in the UK needs permission to get married at 16.
They only may require permission in some jurisdictions but this does not stop them, in any way, from marrying in another jurisdiction.
I guess there are two reasons to oppose 16 and 17 year olds getting a vote in the referendum. Firstly, on principle - you think they are too young and immature to participate. Secondly, you are an Outer, and think they will vote In. Of those PBers arguing against them voting, who is in which camp?
I am strongly of the object in principle camp. As another example of this it is obvious that PR would benefit the party I generally support. But again I oppose it on principle irrespective of how it would help UKIP.
The voting age is also the age at which we allow people to enter into contracts and I do wonder how many of those advocating lowering the age of voting would also be happy to enter into a serious financial contract with a 16 year old or gave them sit in judgement on them in court?
A little more consistency over what "the age of majority" is, is probably needed, but the way I look at it is this:
If you aren't old enough to get drink, or get married (without permission), or leave school: then you're probably not old enough to vote.
No-one in the UK needs permission to get married at 16.
They only may require permission in some jurisdictions but this does not stop them, in any way, from marrying in another jurisdiction.
Can you do ordinary things like "dying for your country" at 16 ?
The clue to the EU referendum is the MORI Issues Index.
Europe scores very, very very low on which issues people believe are important.
People are not going to vote for what will be presented as a major change / risk on an issue that very few people see as important.
Of course all the anoraks will get incredibly excited about it - but if they want to win they need to get Europe up into the top 3 and preferably top 2 in the MORI Issues Index.
I'm not particularly worried about giving 16/17 year olds the vote, and if it encourages future participation in our democracy then that is a net win. There isn't some gran conspiracy whereby the nation's 16 year olds are going to be led off to Brussels by a pied piper. Nor is there a short term option that might encourage myopia, like drinking (or getting married).
Given how young people are increasingly infantilized in my opinion, I find the extension of voting rights to 16/17 year olds suspect to say the least, and I do not support it. Nevertheless, I find the title of this thread hard to dispute - agree with permitting 16/17 year olds to vote or not, if they were allowed to for that referendum, on what basis can they be refused on another, or for Westminster elections? Ok, a mistake does not bind you forever, but I don't recall that much outrage at 16-17 year olds voting in the IndyRef, so it's harder to argue how wrong it was and not allow it again.
Isn't part of the argument that the SNP won a powerful democratic mandate to have input into the terms of the IndyRef, by winning a majority at Holyrood? Just as the Tories have a mandate for imposing (reasonable) terms in the Europe referendum they fought the GE on.
They do, but having not kicked up that much of a fuss about the terms at one, I cannot see why the terms cannot be the same in that regard, even though I don't approve of it.
The SNP clearly fought hard for 16/17, and the PM relented (perhaps as the polls at the time indicated it couldn't make a decisive difference). We are in a quite different ballgame now, and the political capital of Labour (and the LibDems) is at a low ebb. It does come down to Realpolitik.
Perversely, an Out vote by the UK but (within that) an In vote by Scotland would suit the SNP's objectives.
I cannot see how Britain can exit the EU when the majority of Scots or even the Welsh and the Northern Irish vote to stay in.
No good flouncing about the law. Laws like this eventually get changed. It was the Conservative Party which introduced Clause 28 and the Poll Tax.
The clue to the EU referendum is the MORI Issues Index.
Europe scores very, very very low on which issues people believe are important.
People are not going to vote for what will be presented as a major change / risk on an issue that very few people see as important.
Of course all the anoraks will get incredibly excited about it - but if they want to win they need to get Europe up into the top 3 and preferably top 2 in the MORI Issues Index.
If that doesn't happen - forget it.
Referendum campaigns can generate an unexpected degree of excitement and interest, like the referenda on Scottish independence, or Irish gay marriage.
I was one of those that I think @Carnyx was talking about who changed their position on the Indyref , started off agin the idea of 16-18 year olds voting and came out in favour.
A lot of this was in all honesty as a result of my daughter who got her first vote at 17 and played a full part in the referendum, canvassing, leafleting, attendance at TV debates and polling stations. Many of her friends took less interest but so many youngsters took part and contributed to the debate.
I think a Yes/No or In/Out issue is simpler in some ways than the full panoply of party politics. It is not a simple decision but it is a much more clear cut one. No tactical voting, no safe seats, I for one would find it hard to oppose.
We were also sceptical at first, but in the last few months of the campaign 16 & 17 year olds became very engaged. An interesting aspect of their engagement was very little reliance being placed on the MSM, as most of them are internet savy and were able to do their own research. It will be interesting to monitor whether allowing this cohort the vote will make them more likely to vote in the future, hopefully Curtis will keep tabs on this.
The clue to the EU referendum is the MORI Issues Index.
Europe scores very, very very low on which issues people believe are important.
People are not going to vote for what will be presented as a major change / risk on an issue that very few people see as important.
Of course all the anoraks will get incredibly excited about it - but if they want to win they need to get Europe up into the top 3 and preferably top 2 in the MORI Issues Index.
If that doesn't happen - forget it.
65 - 35
I agree in so far as the "No to Europe" camp will need to show how being in the EU negatively affects everyday life. A constitutional argument alone won't get them home. So I fully expect a running battle over jobs, immigration, housing, the NHS and other public services.
The clue to the EU referendum is the MORI Issues Index.
Europe scores very, very very low on which issues people believe are important.
People are not going to vote for what will be presented as a major change / risk on an issue that very few people see as important.
Of course all the anoraks will get incredibly excited about it - but if they want to win they need to get Europe up into the top 3 and preferably top 2 in the MORI Issues Index.
If that doesn't happen - forget it.
I've argued with Mike that's a false approach.
I reckon, immigration is code/a proxy for the EU.
Immigration has been number 1 on the issues index in some recent months.
I was one of those that I think @Carnyx was talking about who changed their position on the Indyref , started off agin the idea of 16-18 year olds voting and came out in favour.
A lot of this was in all honesty as a result of my daughter who got her first vote at 17 and played a full part in the referendum, canvassing, leafleting, attendance at TV debates and polling stations. Many of her friends took less interest but so many youngsters took part and contributed to the debate.
I think a Yes/No or In/Out issue is simpler in some ways than the full panoply of party politics. It is not a simple decision but it is a much more clear cut one. No tactical voting, no safe seats, I for one would find it hard to oppose.
We were also sceptical at first, but in the last few months of the campaign 16 & 17 year olds became very engaged. An interesting aspect of their engagement was very little reliance being placed on the MSM, as most of them are internet savy and were able to do their own research. It will be interesting to monitor whether allowing this cohort the vote will make them more likely to vote in the future, hopefully Curtis will keep tabs on this.
If we assume: 100% Kippers Out, 40% Labour Out, 45% Conservative Out
then we comfortably above the 35% that the opinion polls (currently) find for out. And that before we even get to the BOO LibDems, the BOO Greens, and the BOO Nats.
So, I'm not sure your splits are accurate.
In any case, I think the biggest two determinants of the EU referendum will be:
1) Events 2) What the exact question is (with the great danger for Out being that it is the deceptively simple "Do you want the United Kingdom remain a part of the European Union?")
90% Kippers Out, 30% Labour Out, 40% Conservative Out
Some of the UKIP vote is quite simply Protest vote. Many went straight from LD to UKIP.
I guess there are two reasons to oppose 16 and 17 year olds getting a vote in the referendum. Firstly, on principle - you think they are too young and immature to participate. Secondly, you are an Outer, and think they will vote In. Of those PBers arguing against them voting, who is in which camp?
I am strongly of the object in principle camp. As another example of this it is obvious that PR would benefit the party I generally support. But again I oppose it on principle irrespective of how it would help UKIP.
The voting age is also the age at which we allow people to enter into contracts and I do wonder how many of those advocating lowering the age of voting would also be happy to enter into a serious financial contract with a 16 year old or gave them sit in judgement on them in court?
A little more consistency over what "the age of majority" is, is probably needed, but the way I look at it is this:
If you aren't old enough to get drink, or get married (without permission), or leave school: then you're probably not old enough to vote.
No-one in the UK needs permission to get married at 16.
They only may require permission in some jurisdictions but this does not stop them, in any way, from marrying in another jurisdiction.
Can you do ordinary things like "dying for your country" at 16 ?
No, I believe you have to be 18 to be sent into a theatre of war.
I think votes at 16 is fine. There is no single age of majority in this country. It would be an interesting test of the Con majority if Labour and/or SNP tabled an amendment to the euroref bill. Unless there was a strong whip on the tories then it might get through.
The clue to the EU referendum is the MORI Issues Index.
Europe scores very, very very low on which issues people believe are important.
People are not going to vote for what will be presented as a major change / risk on an issue that very few people see as important.
Of course all the anoraks will get incredibly excited about it - but if they want to win they need to get Europe up into the top 3 and preferably top 2 in the MORI Issues Index.
If that doesn't happen - forget it.
I've argued with Mike that's a false approach.
I reckon, immigration is code for the EU.
Immigration has been number 1 on the issues index in some recent months.
I appreciate that line of thinking but I don't think it will prove to be the case.
I think those people most concerned about immigration are actually most concerned about non-EU immigration - not EU immigration - because they see it as a race / cultural issue.
I was one of those that I think @Carnyx was talking about who changed their position on the Indyref , started off agin the idea of 16-18 year olds voting and came out in favour.
A lot of this was in all honesty as a result of my daughter who got her first vote at 17 and played a full part in the referendum, canvassing, leafleting, attendance at TV debates and polling stations. Many of her friends took less interest but so many youngsters took part and contributed to the debate.
I think a Yes/No or In/Out issue is simpler in some ways than the full panoply of party politics. It is not a simple decision but it is a much more clear cut one. No tactical voting, no safe seats, I for one would find it hard to oppose.
We were also sceptical at first, but in the last few months of the campaign 16 & 17 year olds became very engaged. An interesting aspect of their engagement was very little reliance being placed on the MSM, as most of them are internet savy and were able to do their own research. It will be interesting to monitor whether allowing this cohort the vote will make them more likely to vote in the future, hopefully Curtis will keep tabs on this.
That is an interesting point. The younger generation just don't read newspapers and barely watch TV in the conventional sense of sitting down for a program (box sets and catch up being a different story). They are getting their information from different sources.
Some of these sources, like Twitter, are a long way from reliable but perhaps we saw the future for all politics in these channels. We certainly saw more of this in the GE.
I guess there are two reasons to oppose 16 and 17 year olds getting a vote in the referendum. Firstly, on principle - you think they are too young and immature to participate. Secondly, you are an Outer, and think they will vote In. Of those PBers arguing against them voting, who is in which camp?
I am strongly of the object in principle camp. As another example of this it is obvious that PR would benefit the party I generally support. But again I oppose it on principle irrespective of how it would help UKIP.
The voting age is also the age at which we allow people to enter into contracts and I do wonder how many of those advocating lowering the age of voting would also be happy to enter into a serious financial contract with a 16 year old or gave them sit in judgement on them in court?
A little more consistency over what "the age of majority" is, is probably needed, but the way I look at it is this:
If you aren't old enough to get drink, or get married (without permission), or leave school: then you're probably not old enough to vote.
No-one in the UK needs permission to get married at 16.
They only may require permission in some jurisdictions but this does not stop them, in any way, from marrying in another jurisdiction.
Can you do ordinary things like "dying for your country" at 16 ?
No, I believe you have to be 18 to be sent into a theatre of war.
The rules are not quite as tight as that, and there are circumstances where under 18s can be deployed in combat zones:
An interesting aspect of Carmichael's leaking of a confidential memo without the authors permission is a clear breach of The Law Society of Scotland's guidelines on confidentiality:
Carmichael's delay in confessing his guilt no doubt caused the author and the other 6 senior civil servants at the Scottish office a certain amount of distress as they all came under suspicion over the last 7 weeks.
If we assume: 100% Kippers Out, 40% Labour Out, 45% Conservative Out
then we comfortably above the 35% that the opinion polls (currently) find for out. And that before we even get to the BOO LibDems, the BOO Greens, and the BOO Nats.
So, I'm not sure your splits are accurate.
In any case, I think the biggest two determinants of the EU referendum will be:
1) Events 2) What the exact question is (with the great danger for Out being that it is the deceptively simple "Do you want the United Kingdom remain a part of the European Union?")
90% Kippers Out, 30% Labour Out, 40% Conservative Out
Some of the UKIP vote is quite simply Protest vote. Many went straight from LD to UKIP.
calum - Carmichael can expect a rough ride when he turns up to the Commons.
foxinsoxuk - Thanks for that, so it's only in exceptional circumstances. I would welcome an outright ban on such deployment (although not recruitment) of 16/17-year-olds.
The clue to the EU referendum is the MORI Issues Index.
Europe scores very, very very low on which issues people believe are important.
People are not going to vote for what will be presented as a major change / risk on an issue that very few people see as important.
Of course all the anoraks will get incredibly excited about it - but if they want to win they need to get Europe up into the top 3 and preferably top 2 in the MORI Issues Index.
If that doesn't happen - forget it.
Referendum campaigns can generate an unexpected degree of excitement and interest, like the referenda on Scottish independence, or Irish gay marriage.
For that to happen they need to be issues everyone can very easily relate to.
Being in the EU just isn't like that - it's an academic / technical issue way, way, way removed from most people lives.
Ask people "How would your life change if we left the EU?"
90%+ wouldn't be able to give any answer. I certainly couldn't give an answer - I can't imagine it affecting me in any way whatsoever.
Would the NHS change? Schools? Transport? Tax rates? Benefits? There's nothing tangible to get a grip of.
I guess there are two reasons to oppose 16 and 17 year olds getting a vote in the referendum. Firstly, on principle - you think they are too young and immature to participate. Secondly, you are an Outer, and think they will vote In. Of those PBers arguing against them voting, who is in which camp?
I am strongly of the object in principle camp. As another example of this it is obvious that PR would benefit the party I generally support. But again I oppose it on principle irrespective of how it would help UKIP.
The voting age is also the age at which we allow people to enter into contracts and I do wonder how many of those advocating lowering the age of voting would also be happy to enter into a serious financial contract with a 16 year old or gave them sit in judgement on them in court?
A little more consistency over what "the age of majority" is, is probably needed, but the way I look at it is this:
If you aren't old enough to get drink, or get married (without permission), or leave school: then you're probably not old enough to vote.
No-one in the UK needs permission to get married at 16.
They only may require permission in some jurisdictions but this does not stop them, in any way, from marrying in another jurisdiction.
Can you do ordinary things like "dying for your country" at 16 ?
No, I believe you have to be 18 to be sent into a theatre of war.
I was one of those that I think @Carnyx was talking about who changed their position on the Indyref , started off agin the idea of 16-18 year olds voting and came out in favour.
A lot of this was in all honesty as a result of my daughter who got her first vote at 17 and played a full part in the referendum, canvassing, leafleting, attendance at TV debates and polling stations. Many of her friends took less interest but so many youngsters took part and contributed to the debate.
I think a Yes/No or In/Out issue is simpler in some ways than the full panoply of party politics. It is not a simple decision but it is a much more clear cut one. No tactical voting, no safe seats, I for one would find it hard to oppose.
We were also sceptical at first, but in the last few months of the campaign 16 & 17 year olds became very engaged. An interesting aspect of their engagement was very little reliance being placed on the MSM, as most of them are internet savy and were able to do their own research. It will be interesting to monitor whether allowing this cohort the vote will make them more likely to vote in the future, hopefully Curtis will keep tabs on this.
Filling your twitter feed with people who hold the same views as you does not make your more engaged to do research, it just means your own opinions become massively reinforced. The "I literally dont know anyone who voted Tory" line.
I guess there are two reasons to oppose 16 and 17 year olds getting a vote in the referendum. Firstly, on principle - you think they are too young and immature to participate. Secondly, you are an Outer, and think they will vote In. Of those PBers arguing against them voting, who is in which camp?
I am strongly of the object in principle camp. As another example of this it is obvious that PR would benefit the party I generally support. But again I oppose it on principle irrespective of how it would help UKIP.
The voting age is also the age at which we allow people to enter into contracts and I do wonder how many of those advocating lowering the age of voting would also be happy to enter into a serious financial contract with a 16 year old or gave them sit in judgement on them in court?
A little more consistency over what "the age of majority" is, is probably needed, but the way I look at it is this:
If you aren't old enough to get drink, or get married (without permission), or leave school: then you're probably not old enough to vote.
No-one in the UK needs permission to get married at 16.
They only may require permission in some jurisdictions but this does not stop them, in any way, from marrying in another jurisdiction.
Can you do ordinary things like "dying for your country" at 16 ?
No, I believe you have to be 18 to be sent into a theatre of war.
As well as stupid
Thankfully their 'stupidity', and that of previous generations is why you live in a free, prosperous and secure society.
If we assume: 100% Kippers Out, 40% Labour Out, 45% Conservative Out
then we comfortably above the 35% that the opinion polls (currently) find for out. And that before we even get to the BOO LibDems, the BOO Greens, and the BOO Nats.
So, I'm not sure your splits are accurate.
In any case, I think the biggest two determinants of the EU referendum will be:
1) Events 2) What the exact question is (with the great danger for Out being that it is the deceptively simple "Do you want the United Kingdom remain a part of the European Union?")
90% Kippers Out, 30% Labour Out, 40% Conservative Out
Some of the UKIP vote is quite simply Protest vote. Many went straight from LD to UKIP.
Turnout patterns are critical.
Using the Ipsos Mori turnout figures for the GE 2015 and plugging it into the latest yougov poll the 44/36 for IN becomes 42/38. OUT takes the lead in that poll when the turnout gap between under 40's and over 40's is 25% higher than in the GE.
I was one of those that I think @Carnyx was talking about who changed their position on the Indyref , started off agin the idea of 16-18 year olds voting and came out in favour.
A lot of this was in all honesty as a result of my daughter who got her first vote at 17 and played a full part in the referendum, canvassing, leafleting, attendance at TV debates and polling stations. Many of her friends took less interest but so many youngsters took part and contributed to the debate.
I think a Yes/No or In/Out issue is simpler in some ways than the full panoply of party politics. It is not a simple decision but it is a much more clear cut one. No tactical voting, no safe seats, I for one would find it hard to oppose.
We were also sceptical at first, but in the last few months of the campaign 16 & 17 year olds became very engaged. An interesting aspect of their engagement was very little reliance being placed on the MSM, as most of them are internet savy and were able to do their own research. It will be interesting to monitor whether allowing this cohort the vote will make them more likely to vote in the future, hopefully Curtis will keep tabs on this.
Filling your twitter feed with people who hold the same views as you does not make your more engaged to do research, it just means your own opinions become massively reinforced. The "I literally dont know anyone who voted Tory" line.
I fail to see your view on twitter as any different to my view on readership of the Daily Mail, et al.
I guess there are two reasons to oppose 16 and 17 year olds getting a vote in the referendum. Firstly, on principle - you think they are too young and immature to participate. Secondly, you are an Outer, and think they will vote In. Of those PBers arguing against them voting, who is in which camp?
I am strongly of the object in principle camp. As another example of this it is obvious that PR would benefit the party I generally support. But again I oppose it on principle irrespective of how it would help UKIP.
The voting age is also the age at which we allow people to enter into contracts and I do wonder how many of those advocating lowering the age of voting would also be happy to enter into a serious financial contract with a 16 year old or gave them sit in judgement on them in court?
A little more consistency over what "the age of majority" is, is probably needed, but the way I look at it is this:
If you aren't old enough to get drink, or get married (without permission), or leave school: then you're probably not old enough to vote.
No-one in the UK needs permission to get married at 16.
They only may require permission in some jurisdictions but this does not stop them, in any way, from marrying in another jurisdiction.
Can you do ordinary things like "dying for your country" at 16 ?
No, I believe you have to be 18 to be sent into a theatre of war.
As well as stupid
So in the event Scotland was attacked / invaded or basically had an England - Scotland football match you would hitch up yer kilt and leg it.
I was one of those that I think @Carnyx was talking about who changed their position on the Indyref , started off agin the idea of 16-18 year olds voting and came out in favour.
A lot of this was in all honesty as a result of my daughter who got her first vote at 17 and played a full part in the referendum, canvassing, leafleting, attendance at TV debates and polling stations. Many of her friends took less interest but so many youngsters took part and contributed to the debate.
I think a Yes/No or In/Out issue is simpler in some ways than the full panoply of party politics. It is not a simple decision but it is a much more clear cut one. No tactical voting, no safe seats, I for one would find it hard to oppose.
We were also sceptical at first, but in the last few months of the campaign 16 & 17 year olds became very engaged. An interesting aspect of their engagement was very little reliance being placed on the MSM, as most of them are internet savy and were able to do their own research. It will be interesting to monitor whether allowing this cohort the vote will make them more likely to vote in the future, hopefully Curtis will keep tabs on this.
Filling your twitter feed with people who hold the same views as you does not make your more engaged to do research, it just means your own opinions become massively reinforced. The "I literally dont know anyone who voted Tory" line.
I think you have just described the self-styled "Westminster elite commentators", who seem to spend most of the day carpet bombing twitter with each others articles and inane views on life stuck inside the Westminster bubble. My 17 year old daughter didn't go near twitter, she researched both sides of the argument from multiple resources and reached her own decision on how to vote.
calum - Carmichael can expect a rough ride when he turns up to the Commons.
foxinsoxuk - Thanks for that, so it's only in exceptional circumstances. I would welcome an outright ban on such deployment (although not recruitment) of 16/17-year-olds.
Of course a proper war is an exceptional circumstance!
If we assume: 100% Kippers Out, 40% Labour Out, 45% Conservative Out
then we comfortably above the 35% that the opinion polls (currently) find for out. And that before we even get to the BOO LibDems, the BOO Greens, and the BOO Nats.
So, I'm not sure your splits are accurate.
In any case, I think the biggest two determinants of the EU referendum will be:
1) Events 2) What the exact question is (with the great danger for Out being that it is the deceptively simple "Do you want the United Kingdom remain a part of the European Union?")
90% Kippers Out, 30% Labour Out, 40% Conservative Out
Some of the UKIP vote is quite simply Protest vote. Many went straight from LD to UKIP.
Turnout patterns are critical.
Using the Ipsos Mori turnout figures for the GE 2015 and plugging it into the latest yougov poll the 44/36 for IN becomes 42/38. OUT takes the lead in that poll when the turnout gap between under 40's and over 40's is 25% higher than in the GE.
TBH, I'm not sure how interesting the polling is at this stage. Outcomes between 2:1 for in and 2:1 for out are perfectly possible, depending on (a) events, (b) the question and (c) the campaign.
foxinsoxuk - Heh. I agree you could drive a coach and horses through that wording, which is why I would favour a full ban. ------ Someone was asking about the framing of the 1975 referendum question. It was:
"Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?"
So MG thinks that young men of 18 who were conscripted and sent to war are ..were..all stupid..and this on Memorial Day..a lot of those Stupid lads never came back..What a prat.
calum - Carmichael can expect a rough ride when he turns up to the Commons.
foxinsoxuk - Thanks for that, so it's only in exceptional circumstances. I would welcome an outright ban on such deployment (although not recruitment) of 16/17-year-olds.
Carmichael is getting a rough ride from all quarters at the moment. The only people supporting him appear to be Willie Rennie and the Scottish LibDem Executive, there's an interesting article on LibDem Voice on their decision not to take action against Carmichael:
Reading the comments my first observation is that these guys are so polite to one another, however there seems to be a grassroots view that Carmichael should go, but the party officials are trying to dampen things down.
Much to the disappointment of the London MSM, this story has refused to die over the bank holiday weekend. It will be interesting to see whether they reluctantly take up the story. I think the longer Carmichael clings on the more risk that this will damage not only his party, but possibly bring the likes of Rennie, Clegg and Mundell.
Given how young people are increasingly infantilized in my opinion, I find the extension of voting rights to 16/17 year olds suspect to say the least, and I do not support it. Nevertheless, I find the title of this thread hard to dispute - agree with permitting 16/17 year olds to vote or not, if they were allowed to for that referendum, on what basis can they be refused on another, or for Westminster elections? Ok, a mistake does not bind you forever, but I don't recall that much outrage at 16-17 year olds voting in the IndyRef, so it's harder to argue how wrong it was and not allow it again.
Isn't part of the argument that the SNP won a powerful democratic mandate to have input into the terms of the IndyRef, by winning a majority at Holyrood? Just as the Tories have a mandate for imposing (reasonable) terms in the Europe referendum they fought the GE on.
They do, but having not kicked up that much of a fuss about the terms at one, I cannot see why the terms cannot be the same in that regard, even though I don't approve of it.
The SNP clearly fought hard for 16/17, and the PM relented (perhaps as the polls at the time indicated it couldn't make a decisive difference). We are in a quite different ballgame now, and the political capital of Labour (and the LibDems) is at a low ebb. It does come down to Realpolitik.
Perversely, an Out vote by the UK but (within that) an In vote by Scotland would suit the SNP's objectives.
I cannot see how Britain can exit the EU when the majority of Scots or even the Welsh and the Northern Irish vote to stay in.
...
Because the UK is one country, perhaps? Where the In or the Out votes come from is completely irrelevant.
Everybody seems to run for Labour Deputy Leader! Now 7....at least 1 won't get the 35 signatures required. Maths against them.
And Select Committee Chairmanships elections coming up....Twiggy wants to lead the International Development committee.
Oh, Deputy Speakers to be elected too. I guess Hoyle and Laing will be reconfirmed. But there's one open spot for Labour as Primarolo retired at GE
That is I think because they don't think they can beat Burnham or Cooper, so instead they go for the deputy leadership as it's easier to get. Also there is less risk being locked out if they are on the losing side in a leadership campaign and if the new leader goes down in flames they can use the deputy leadership as a spring board for the top job.
The deputy leadership contest is interesting to see those who think they can be Labour leader but are not yet ready to contest the leadership.
A few weeks ago Labour didn't want anyone to vote in the EU referendum, now they want 16 year olds to be able to. Very transparent.
Not long ago David Cameron didn't want anyone to have a TV debate, then he took part in one, AND wanted the Green Party to be able to. Very transparent.
As an aside, while including EU citizens resident in the UK in the EU referendum would clearly be wrong, it seems bizarre that commonwealth citizens are allowed to vote.
But I guess that's just me...
The capacity for commonwealth citizens who reside here having *full* voting rights and equal ability to stand for local and national elections pre-dates our membership of the European Union.
Doesn't mean they should have. The world has moved on since that entitlement was introduced.
Given how young people are increasingly infantilized in my opinion, I find the extension of voting rights to 16/17 year olds suspect to say the least, and I do not support it. Nevertheless, I find the title of this thread hard to dispute - agree with permitting 16/17 year olds to vote or not, if they were allowed to for that referendum, on what basis can they be refused on another, or for Westminster elections? Ok, a mistake does not bind you forever, but I don't recall that much outrage at 16-17 year olds voting in the IndyRef, so it's harder to argue how wrong it was and not allow it again.
Isn't part of the argument that the SNP won a powerful democratic mandate to have input into the terms of the IndyRef, by winning a majority at Holyrood? Just as the Tories have a mandate for imposing (reasonable) terms in the Europe referendum they fought the GE on.
They do, but having not kicked up that much of a fuss about the terms at one, I cannot see why the terms cannot be the same in that regard, even though I don't approve of it.
The SNP clearly fought hard for 16/17, and the PM relented (perhaps as the polls at the time indicated it couldn't make a decisive difference). We are in a quite different ballgame now, and the political capital of Labour (and the LibDems) is at a low ebb. It does come down to Realpolitik.
Perversely, an Out vote by the UK but (within that) an In vote by Scotland would suit the SNP's objectives.
I cannot see how Britain can exit the EU when the majority of Scots or even the Welsh and the Northern Irish vote to stay in.
...
Because the UK is one country, perhaps? Where the In or the Out votes come from is completely irrelevant.
If England votes Out; but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland vote In then we may well not be a single country any more.
foxinsoxuk - Heh. I agree you could drive a coach and horses through that wording, which is why I would favour a full ban. ------ Someone was asking about the framing of the 1975 referendum question. It was:
"Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?"
That is a very dangerous question for BOO.
I believe the country splits into three roughly parts: 1. those who are broadly committed to the EU, 2. those who would prefer a looser arrangement (say EFTA/EEA or Associate EU member), and 3. those who wish us to have no political entanglement with the continent.
Any question that leaves the exact shape of the post-Brexit relationship with the EU open will result in the debate being framed as: 1&2 vs 3. While 2 is likely to receive widespread support from business, 3 is likely to be pretty unloved. But unless 2 is on the ballot, the debate will be framed as 1 vs 3, and I don't believe that's a battle that Out can win.
Given how young people are increasingly infantilized in my opinion, I find the extension of voting rights to 16/17 year olds suspect to say the least, and I do not support it. Nevertheless, I find the title of this thread hard to dispute - agree with permitting 16/17 year olds to vote or not, if they were allowed to for that referendum, on what basis can they be refused on another, or for Westminster elections? Ok, a mistake does not bind you forever, but I don't recall that much outrage at 16-17 year olds voting in the IndyRef, so it's harder to argue how wrong it was and not allow it again.
Isn't part of the argument that the SNP won a powerful democratic mandate to have input into the terms of the IndyRef, by winning a majority at Holyrood? Just as the Tories have a mandate for imposing (reasonable) terms in the Europe referendum they fought the GE on.
They do, but having not kicked up that much of a fuss about the terms at one, I cannot see why the terms cannot be the same in that regard, even though I don't approve of it.
The SNP clearly fought hard for 16/17, and the PM relented (perhaps as the polls at the time indicated it couldn't make a decisive difference). We are in a quite different ballgame now, and the political capital of Labour (and the LibDems) is at a low ebb. It does come down to Realpolitik.
Perversely, an Out vote by the UK but (within that) an In vote by Scotland would suit the SNP's objectives.
I cannot see how Britain can exit the EU when the majority of Scots or even the Welsh and the Northern Irish vote to stay in.
...
Because the UK is one country, perhaps? Where the In or the Out votes come from is completely irrelevant.
If England votes Out; but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland vote In then we may well not be a single country any more.
I fear for a situation where there are dramatic regional differences. If there are regions voting 2:1 for out, and others voting 2:1 for in, then we might end up breaking the country apart.
Given how young people are increasingly infantilized in my opinion, I find the extension of voting rights to 16/17 year olds suspect to say the least, and I do not support it. Nevertheless, I find the title of this thread hard to dispute - agree with permitting 16/17 year olds to vote or not, if they were allowed to for that referendum, on what basis can they be refused on another, or for Westminster elections? Ok, a mistake does not bind you forever, but I don't recall that much outrage at 16-17 year olds voting in the IndyRef, so it's harder to argue how wrong it was and not allow it again.
Isn't part of the argument that the SNP won a powerful democratic mandate to have input into the terms of the IndyRef, by winning a majority at Holyrood? Just as the Tories have a mandate for imposing (reasonable) terms in the Europe referendum they fought the GE on.
They do, but having not kicked up that much of a fuss about the terms at one, I cannot see why the terms cannot be the same in that regard, even though I don't approve of it.
The SNP clearly fought hard for 16/17, and the PM relented (perhaps as the polls at the time indicated it couldn't make a decisive difference). We are in a quite different ballgame now, and the political capital of Labour (and the LibDems) is at a low ebb. It does come down to Realpolitik.
Perversely, an Out vote by the UK but (within that) an In vote by Scotland would suit the SNP's objectives.
I cannot see how Britain can exit the EU when the majority of Scots or even the Welsh and the Northern Irish vote to stay in.
...
Because the UK is one country, perhaps? Where the In or the Out votes come from is completely irrelevant.
If England votes Out; but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland vote In then we may well not be a single country any more.
How low should this division go? What about a county-by-county basis?
calum - Carmichael can expect a rough ride when he turns up to the Commons.
foxinsoxuk - Thanks for that, so it's only in exceptional circumstances. I would welcome an outright ban on such deployment (although not recruitment) of 16/17-year-olds.
Carmichael is getting a rough ride from all quarters at the moment. The only people supporting him appear to be Willie Rennie and the Scottish LibDem Executive, there's an interesting article on LibDem Voice on their decision not to take action against Carmichael:
Reading the comments my first observation is that these guys are so polite to one another, however there seems to be a grassroots view that Carmichael should go, but the party officials are trying to dampen things down.
Much to the disappointment of the London MSM, this story has refused to die over the bank holiday weekend. It will be interesting to see whether they reluctantly take up the story. I think the longer Carmichael clings on the more risk that this will damage not only his party, but possibly bring the likes of Rennie, Clegg and Mundell.
Calum: while I wish you were right, the truth is that this story has very little resonance outside Scotland. Not one single person - outside PB - has mentioned this to me or has given any indication about caring.
A few days ago I said, 2 months of fuss, 2 months of inconvenience, 2 months of "at the back of peoples' minds", but I'd reckon that Carmichael will not resign, and two years from now, no-one will care.
That being said, Carmichael is going to have a really shitty time when he's in the Commons, surrounded 6-to-1 by SNP MPs...
Given how young people are increasingly infantilized in my opinion, I find the extension of voting rights to 16/17 year olds suspect to say the least, and I do not support it. Nevertheless, I find the title of this thread hard to dispute - agree with permitting 16/17 year olds to vote or not, if they were allowed to for that referendum, on what basis can they be refused on another, or for Westminster elections? Ok, a mistake does not bind you forever, but I don't recall that much outrage at 16-17 year olds voting in the IndyRef, so it's harder to argue how wrong it was and not allow it again.
Isn't part of the argument that the SNP won a powerful democratic mandate to have input into the terms of the IndyRef, by winning a majority at Holyrood? Just as the Tories have a mandate for imposing (reasonable) terms in the Europe referendum they fought the GE on.
They do, but having not kicked up that much of a fuss about the terms at one, I cannot see why the terms cannot be the same in that regard, even though I don't approve of it.
The SNP clearly fought hard for 16/17, and the PM relented (perhaps as the polls at the time indicated it couldn't make a decisive difference). We are in a quite different ballgame now, and the political capital of Labour (and the LibDems) is at a low ebb. It does come down to Realpolitik.
Perversely, an Out vote by the UK but (within that) an In vote by Scotland would suit the SNP's objectives.
I cannot see how Britain can exit the EU when the majority of Scots or even the Welsh and the Northern Irish vote to stay in.
...
Because the UK is one country, perhaps? Where the In or the Out votes come from is completely irrelevant.
If England votes Out; but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland vote In then we may well not be a single country any more.
If they want to declare independence on that basis then that's their call. I don't honestly believe it's that big an issue in the independence debates anyway.
calum - Carmichael can expect a rough ride when he turns up to the Commons.
foxinsoxuk - Thanks for that, so it's only in exceptional circumstances. I would welcome an outright ban on such deployment (although not recruitment) of 16/17-year-olds.
Carmichael is getting a rough ride from all quarters at the moment. The only people supporting him appear to be Willie Rennie and the Scottish LibDem Executive, there's an interesting article on LibDem Voice on their decision not to take action against Carmichael:
Reading the comments my first observation is that these guys are so polite to one another, however there seems to be a grassroots view that Carmichael should go, but the party officials are trying to dampen things down.
Much to the disappointment of the London MSM, this story has refused to die over the bank holiday weekend. It will be interesting to see whether they reluctantly take up the story. I think the longer Carmichael clings on the more risk that this will damage not only his party, but possibly bring the likes of Rennie, Clegg and Mundell.
Carmichael is getting a rough ride from all quarters at the moment.
If they want to declare independence on that basis then that's their call. I don't honestly believe it's that big an issue in the independence debates anyway.
It would be an issue if Scotland voted (say) 3:1 for In, but the UK broke 51:49 for Out. In those circumstances I could see it leading to the break-up of the union.
I voted in 1975 under certain rules and IN we stayed. Why try and change the rules now?
Yes, it was clear that the 1957 Treaty of Rome led to political union. If the EEC was just a free trade area like EFTA, then why was the UK leaving EFTA and joining the EEC?
I accepted the result as final. So did well-known politicians like Tony Benn, Barbara Castle, etc.
Everybody seems to run for Labour Deputy Leader! Now 7....at least 1 won't get the 35 signatures required. Maths against them.
And Select Committee Chairmanships elections coming up....Twiggy wants to lead the International Development committee.
Oh, Deputy Speakers to be elected too. I guess Hoyle and Laing will be reconfirmed. But there's one open spot for Labour as Primarolo retired at GE
That is I think because they don't think they can beat Burnham or Cooper, so instead they go for the deputy leadership as it's easier to get. Also there is less risk being locked out if they are on the losing side in a leadership campaign and if the new leader goes down in flames they can use the deputy leadership as a spring board for the top job.
...
History would be against them on that. Of Labour's sixteen deputy leaders, only two (Attlee and Foot) went on to become leader.
Given how young people are increasingly infantilized in my opinion, I find the extension of voting rights to 16/17 year olds suspect to say the least, and I do not support it. Nevertheless, I find the title of this thread hard to dispute - agree with permitting 16/17 year olds to vote or not, if they were allowed to for that referendum, on what basis can they be refused on another, or for Westminster elections? Ok, a mistake does not bind you forever, but I don't recall that much outrage at 16-17 year olds voting in the IndyRef, so it's harder to argue how wrong it was and not allow it again.
Isn't part of the argument that the SNP won a powerful democratic mandate to have input into the terms of the IndyRef, by winning a majority at Holyrood? Just as the Tories have a mandate for imposing (reasonable) terms in the Europe referendum they fought the GE on.
They do, but having not kicked up that much of a fuss about the terms at one, I cannot see why the terms cannot be the same in that regard, even though I don't approve of it.
The SNP clearly fought hard for 16/17, and the PM relented (perhaps as the polls at the time indicated it couldn't make a decisive difference). We are in a quite different ballgame now, and the political capital of Labour (and the LibDems) is at a low ebb. It does come down to Realpolitik.
Perversely, an Out vote by the UK but (within that) an In vote by Scotland would suit the SNP's objectives.
I cannot see how Britain can exit the EU when the majority of Scots or even the Welsh and the Northern Irish vote to stay in.
...
Because the UK is one country, perhaps? Where the In or the Out votes come from is completely irrelevant.
If England votes Out; but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland vote In then we may well not be a single country any more.
How low should this division go? What about a county-by-county basis?
I think within England there will be significant variation. Probably most in London for In.
But Scotland would legitimately take such a scenario as the trigger for another indy ref.
Given how young people are increasingly infantilized in my opinion, I find the extension of voting rights to 16/17 year olds suspect to say the least, and I do not support it. Nevertheless, I find the title of this thread hard to dispute - agree with permitting 16/17 year olds to vote or not, if they were allowed to for that referendum, on what basis can they be refused on another, or for Westminster elections? Ok, a mistake does not bind you forever, but I don't recall that much outrage at 16-17 year olds voting in the IndyRef, so it's harder to argue how wrong it was and not allow it again.
Isn't part of the argument that the SNP won a powerful democratic mandate to have input into the terms of the IndyRef, by winning a majority at Holyrood? Just as the Tories have a mandate for imposing (reasonable) terms in the Europe referendum they fought the GE on.
They do, but having not kicked up that much of a fuss about the terms at one, I cannot see why the terms cannot be the same in that regard, even though I don't approve of it.
The SNP clearly fought hard for 16/17, and the PM relented (perhaps as the polls at the time indicated it couldn't make a decisive difference). We are in a quite different ballgame now, and the political capital of Labour (and the LibDems) is at a low ebb. It does come down to Realpolitik.
Perversely, an Out vote by the UK but (within that) an In vote by Scotland would suit the SNP's objectives.
I cannot see how Britain can exit the EU when the majority of Scots or even the Welsh and the Northern Irish vote to stay in.
...
Because the UK is one country, perhaps? Where the In or the Out votes come from is completely irrelevant.
If England votes Out; but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland vote In then we may well not be a single country any more.
LOL, I'd really enjoy watching that.
NI - sod off no-one can afford you, stay with the brits Wales - bugger the whole place runs at a loss, come back later Scotland - well maybe but your going to have to cut your government spending by 10% ok ? Oh and the Spaniards want the rest of the fish.
Comments
The voting age is also the age at which we allow people to enter into contracts and I do wonder how many of those advocating lowering the age of voting would also be happy to enter into a serious financial contract with a 16 year old or gave them sit in judgement on them in court?
(I think there were two of us at last count)
Chuffed to buggery that England aren't nicking our coach now.
Since the Referendum, votes at 16 are now also supported by the Scottish Conservative and Unionists and Scottish Labour.
We now face the bizarre spectacle that an entire cohort of citizens who will vote in the Holyrood 2016 election (on current plans) disenfranchised.
That's before even considering that an individual who has been elected to the Holyrood parliament will also be disenfranchised by the current proposals.
He allows Irish sides to lie all over the ball and elbow jackal. there's nothing you can do in the face of that.
Fun fact: up until 2012-13 Munster had never lost a game in Europe that Owens had reffed (bar matches to other Irish teams).
Well, that other 40% is pretty sizeable
Having two Jags not one. Simples John.
If Scottish parties want to have a daft policy in Scotland, that's up to them.
Voting is one of the weakest decision processes that citizens make because the individual vote is ameliorated by 40 million other votes, balancing out the possible unwanted effect of people who may be too senile, too corrupt, too stupid or too immature. It is an ideal way to introduce individuals to the social contract and establish a participatory framework for life.
There is no magic light which switched on when someone reaches 18, what should matter is whether a cohort engages and considers the decision they are making. We have clear evidence from the Scottish Referendum that the 16 and 17 year old cohort was by far the most engaged and involved in the process. We also have pretty good evidence that the most elderly cohort was the least engaged, voting purely as a habit and without consideration for the consequences of their action.
British Society could use a proper, full discussion over age requirements in all areas, from voting to the age of consent to the age of participation in armed forces to the age of social decision making (such as alcohol and tobacco). Of course Britain won't do this and at least a few of those areas are taboo for open discussion. But voting, given its weak impact and risk free nature should not be one of those.
In any case, are those who can vote at the moment in one election but not another 'disenfranchised'? The logic of your argument is all tail-wagging-dog: as soon as one person has a vote in one election, they must then automatically have one in every other one. Even more so given that the original initiative arose in one relatively small part of the country.
If you aren't old enough to get drink, or get married (without permission), or leave school: then you're probably not old enough to vote.
And how about an IQ cut-off too?
OK, Westminster let Scotland decide but it was entirely a Scottish decision.
Scotland is not the UK - just because Scotland is in favour of something does not mean it should apply to the whole of the UK.
If we assume:
100% Kippers Out,
40% Labour Out,
45% Conservative Out
then we comfortably above the 35% that the opinion polls (currently) find for out. And that before we even get to the BOO LibDems, the BOO Greens, and the BOO Nats.
So, I'm not sure your splits are accurate.
In any case, I think the biggest two determinants of the EU referendum will be:
1) Events
2) What the exact question is (with the great danger for Out being that it is the deceptively simple "Do you want the United Kingdom remain a part of the European Union?")
But I guess that's just me...
One of the best test matches of recent times.
It's all Real Politics. Its the pretending otherwise which is a bit nauseating.
A lot of this was in all honesty as a result of my daughter who got her first vote at 17 and played a full part in the referendum, canvassing, leafleting, attendance at TV debates and polling stations. Many of her friends took less interest but so many youngsters took part and contributed to the debate.
I think a Yes/No or In/Out issue is simpler in some ways than the full panoply of party politics. It is not a simple decision but it is a much more clear cut one. No tactical voting, no safe seats, I for one would find it hard to oppose.
Perversely, an Out vote by the UK but (within that) an In vote by Scotland would suit the SNP's objectives.
Europe scores very, very very low on which issues people believe are important.
People are not going to vote for what will be presented as a major change / risk on an issue that very few people see as important.
Of course all the anoraks will get incredibly excited about it - but if they want to win they need to get Europe up into the top 3 and preferably top 2 in the MORI Issues Index.
If that doesn't happen - forget it.
If the vote takes place after 19 September 2016, no Scot who voted in the independence referendum will be excluded from voting in the EU referendum. Without tangible examples of the anomaly, it will be harder for advocates of younger voters to whip up opposition.
Personally, I can't get too excited either way on the point. If the vote is that much of a cliffhanger that their votes will prove decisive, the country will have far bigger problems ahead.
They only may require permission in some jurisdictions but this does not stop them, in any way, from marrying in another jurisdiction.
No good flouncing about the law. Laws like this eventually get changed. It was the Conservative Party which introduced Clause 28 and the Poll Tax.
I reckon, immigration is code/a proxy for the EU.
Immigration has been number 1 on the issues index in some recent months.
30% Labour Out,
40% Conservative Out
Some of the UKIP vote is quite simply Protest vote. Many went straight from LD to UKIP.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/usvsth3m/7-monster-raving-loony-party-5644717
I think votes at 16 is fine. There is no single age of majority in this country. It would be an interesting test of the Con majority if Labour and/or SNP tabled an amendment to the euroref bill. Unless there was a strong whip on the tories then it might get through.
I think those people most concerned about immigration are actually most concerned about non-EU immigration - not EU immigration - because they see it as a race / cultural issue.
Some of these sources, like Twitter, are a long way from reliable but perhaps we saw the future for all politics in these channels. We certainly saw more of this in the GE.
http://www.child-soldiers.org/country_reader.php?id=6
http://www.lawscot.org.uk/rules-and-guidance/section-b/rule-b1-standards-of-conduct/guidance/b16-confidentiality-generally/
Carmichael's delay in confessing his guilt no doubt caused the author and the other 6 senior civil servants at the Scottish office a certain amount of distress as they all came under suspicion over the last 7 weeks.
foxinsoxuk - Thanks for that, so it's only in exceptional circumstances. I would welcome an outright ban on such deployment (although not recruitment) of 16/17-year-olds.
Being in the EU just isn't like that - it's an academic / technical issue way, way, way removed from most people lives.
Ask people "How would your life change if we left the EU?"
90%+ wouldn't be able to give any answer. I certainly couldn't give an answer - I can't imagine it affecting me in any way whatsoever.
Would the NHS change? Schools? Transport? Tax rates? Benefits? There's nothing tangible to get a grip of.
Using the Ipsos Mori turnout figures for the GE 2015 and plugging it into the latest yougov poll the 44/36 for IN becomes 42/38.
OUT takes the lead in that poll when the turnout gap between under 40's and over 40's is 25% higher than in the GE.
And Select Committee Chairmanships elections coming up....Twiggy wants to lead the International Development committee.
Oh, Deputy Speakers to be elected too. I guess Hoyle and Laing will be reconfirmed. But there's one open spot for Labour as Primarolo retired at GE
"To wives and sweethearts........ May they never meet"
No Brainer on 16 yr olds voting
M'Kay....
"Officers and their ladies, Sergeants and their wives, Privates and their women"
I voted in 1975 under certain rules and IN we stayed. Why try and change the rules now?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scotlands-new-drinkdriving-law-is-so-successful-its-damaging-the-economy-according-to-bank-of-scotland-report-10173764.html
------
Someone was asking about the framing of the 1975 referendum question. It was:
"Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?"
http://www.libdemvoice.org/breakingwillie-rennie-i-hope-that-fair-minded-people-will-give-alistair-carmichael-a-second-chance-46095.html
Reading the comments my first observation is that these guys are so polite to one another, however there seems to be a grassroots view that Carmichael should go, but the party officials are trying to dampen things down.
Much to the disappointment of the London MSM, this story has refused to die over the bank holiday weekend. It will be interesting to see whether they reluctantly take up the story. I think the longer Carmichael clings on the more risk that this will damage not only his party, but possibly bring the likes of Rennie, Clegg and Mundell.
Also there is less risk being locked out if they are on the losing side in a leadership campaign and if the new leader goes down in flames they can use the deputy leadership as a spring board for the top job.
The deputy leadership contest is interesting to see those who think they can be Labour leader but are not yet ready to contest the leadership.
I believe the country splits into three roughly parts: 1. those who are broadly committed to the EU, 2. those who would prefer a looser arrangement (say EFTA/EEA or Associate EU member), and 3. those who wish us to have no political entanglement with the continent.
Any question that leaves the exact shape of the post-Brexit relationship with the EU open will result in the debate being framed as: 1&2 vs 3. While 2 is likely to receive widespread support from business, 3 is likely to be pretty unloved. But unless 2 is on the ballot, the debate will be framed as 1 vs 3, and I don't believe that's a battle that Out can win.
A few days ago I said, 2 months of fuss, 2 months of inconvenience, 2 months of "at the back of peoples' minds", but I'd reckon that Carmichael will not resign, and two years from now, no-one will care.
That being said, Carmichael is going to have a really shitty time when he's in the Commons, surrounded 6-to-1 by SNP MPs...
Down here in Warwickshire nobody gives a shit.
I accepted the result as final. So did well-known politicians like Tony Benn, Barbara Castle, etc.
But Scotland would legitimately take such a scenario as the trigger for another indy ref.
NI - sod off no-one can afford you, stay with the brits
Wales - bugger the whole place runs at a loss, come back later
Scotland - well maybe but your going to have to cut your government spending by 10% ok ? Oh and the Spaniards want the rest of the fish.