The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
Leave can also - to an extent - learn from the indyref: a grassroots campaign based on persuasive conversations with friends and family.
That probably moved the indyref from a 65/35 result to a 55/45, and a 10% swing is no mean feat.
Leave should do the same: the objective here if a win is out of the question is to run Remain very close, so that the issue isn't closed down for a generation. Losing by a smaller margin that Yes did in Scotland last year would probably be enough to ensure it stays simmering in the background.
I agree with that. That means that Leave needs to come out with a positive vision of a post-exit future rather than simply criticising the present. People won't join a grassroots campaign to carp and grumble.
They have. The likes of Dan Hannah have mapped out a very positive vision.
Do you think that's what the public are seeing and hearing?
The public will see and hear what they wish to
"You think it is nasty? You ain't seen nothing yet."
Yes, and Remain needs to watch their scaremongering.
Remain and Leave have different problems. Though I agree that the Remain campaign has also been appalling so far. Vote Leave are behaving idiotically at present, mind.
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
Leave can also - to an extent - learn from the indyref: a grassroots campaign based on persuasive conversations with friends and family.
That probably moved the indyref from a 65/35 result to a 55/45, and a 10% swing is no mean feat.
Leave should do the same: the objective here if a win is out of the question is to run Remain very close, so that the issue isn't closed down for a generation. Losing by a smaller margin that Yes did in Scotland last year would probably be enough to ensure it stays simmering in the background.
I agree with that. That means that Leave needs to come out with a positive vision of a post-exit future rather than simply criticising the present. People won't join a grassroots campaign to carp and grumble.
They have. The likes of Dan Hannah have mapped out a very positive vision.
Do you think that's what the public are seeing and hearing?
The public will see and hear what they wish to
"You think it is nasty? You ain't seen nothing yet."
An undecided like you will be keeping an open mind
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
Leave can also - to an extent - learn from the indyref: a grassroots campaign based on persuasive conversations with friends and family.
That probably moved the indyref from a 65/35 result to a 55/45, and a 10% swing is no mean feat.
Leave should do the same: the objective here if a win is out of the question is to run Remain very close, so that the issue isn't closed down for a generation. Losing by a smaller margin that Yes did in Scotland last year would probably be enough to ensure it stays simmering in the background.
I agree with that. That means that Leave needs to come out with a positive vision of a post-exit future rather than simply criticising the present. People won't join a grassroots campaign to carp and grumble.
They have. The likes of Dan Hannah have mapped out a very positive vision.
Do you think that's what the public are seeing and hearing?
Not so much, to my chagrin. However, I understand Leave has done quite a lot of market research confirming that their best shot is to run on the money the EU costs us.
I had a similar frustration around the Unionist campaign in the indyref running on pensions and collateral for Scotland, but it didn't exactly inspire.
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
Leave can also - to an extent - learn from the indyref: a grassroots campaign based on persuasive conversations with friends and family.
That probably moved the indyref from a 65/35 result to a 55/45, and a 10% swing is no mean feat.
Leave should do the same: the objective here if a win is out of the question is to run Remain very close, so that the issue isn't closed down for a generation. Losing by a smaller margin that Yes did in Scotland last year would probably be enough to ensure it stays simmering in the background.
I agree with that. That means that Leave needs to come out with a positive vision of a post-exit future rather than simply criticising the present. People won't join a grassroots campaign to carp and grumble.
They have. The likes of Dan Hannah have mapped out a very positive vision.
Do you think that's what the public are seeing and hearing?
The public will see and hear what they wish to
"You think it is nasty? You ain't seen nothing yet."
Yes, and Remain needs to watch their scaremongering.
Remain and Leave have different problems. Though I agree that the Remain campaign has also been appalling so far. Vote Leave are behaving idiotically at present, mind.
If their voters are idiots, then their behaviour is rational, surely?
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
Leave can also - to an extent - learn from the indyref: a grassroots campaign based on persuasive conversations with friends and family.
That probably moved the indyref from a 65/35 result to a 55/45, and a 10% swing is no mean feat.
Leave should do the same: the objective here if a win is out of the question is to run Remain very close, so that the issue isn't closed down for a generation. Losing by a smaller margin that Yes did in Scotland last year would probably be enough to ensure it stays simmering in the background.
I agree with that. That means that Leave needs to come out with a positive vision of a post-exit future rather than simply criticising the present. People won't join a grassroots campaign to carp and grumble.
They have. The likes of Dan Hannah have mapped out a very positive vision.
Do you think that's what the public are seeing and hearing?
The public will see and hear what they wish to
"You think it is nasty? You ain't seen nothing yet."
An undecided like you will be keeping an open mind
I am. My vote will ultimately be cast on the vision of Britain's future. I'm currently being offered a choice between undemocratic arrogant bureaucrats and angry little Englander nutters. I'm not enthused.
There are many things about the EU that I like, enjoy and make my life better
Why isn't the 'remain' campaign talking about all these wonderful things then?
Its a bit like "what have the Romans ever done for us?" Indeed that would be a good Remain advert if updated!
I like the EWTD and other social protections, ability to retire to the sun, the ability to hire European staff with a minimum of hassle, the environmental approach on a continent wide basis, Fox jr like being able to take a Masters in the EU without needing to pay fees etc etc.
I even like the fact that vacuum manufacturers do not need to apply for 28 different energy assessments.
I also like the redistribution of taxes so that the historically poor parts of Europe develop to a level historically only seen in NW Europe economically and socially. Iberia, the Balkans and the old Communist block are much freer, wealthier and generally pleasant because we have helped them via the EU.
But that is enough banging on about Europe for one morning!
None of that benefits the working class of Britain. That in a nutshell is what this referendum is all about.
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
Leave can also - to an extent - learn from the indyref: a grassroots campaign based on persuasive conversations with friends and family.
That probably moved the indyref from a 65/35 result to a 55/45, and a 10% swing is no mean feat.
Leave should do the same: the objective here if a win is out of the question is to run Remain very close, so that the issue isn't closed down for a generation. Losing by a smaller margin that Yes did in Scotland last year would probably be enough to ensure it stays simmering in the background.
I agree with that. That means that Leave needs to come out with a positive vision of a post-exit future rather than simply criticising the present. People won't join a grassroots campaign to carp and grumble.
They have. The likes of Dan Hannah have mapped out a very positive vision.
Do you think that's what the public are seeing and hearing?
The public will see and hear what they wish to
"You think it is nasty? You ain't seen nothing yet."
An undecided like you will be keeping an open mind
I am. My vote will ultimately be cast on the vision of Britain's future. I'm currently being offered a choice between undemocratic arrogant bureaucrats and angry little Englander nutters. I'm not enthused.
I think you are positing a false choice.
There are clearly some "angry little Englander nutters" on the Leave side. But there are also a lot of thoughtful and sensible people.
The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
Snip
The answer is 'impossible'. Forty years ago the 'Yes' side had some success portraying Europe as 'the future' but Britain's experiences in the EU since are unlikely to have reinforced that view. And Europe's serious relative economic decline isn't consistent with such a picture either.
Hence an almost total concentration on financial scare stories, most of which are entirely bogus.
Just because you can see no good in the EU does not mean that others cannot!
There are many things about the EU that I like, enjoy and make my life better. Not just me either which is why younger people are so much more positive about it.
The EU and NHS are very similar. They are both really good ideas, the concepts are almost impossible to argue against.
The problem is that not all good ideas work well in practice.
They both have faults that will cause them long term problems and are both unwieldy and unmanageable. They are too slow to adapt and in the end the preservation of the organisation becomes the cause rather than providing the laudable aims of the original concept.
The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot y is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
I'm not sure that a single clear I'd fully agree on the necessity of positivity for Remain. A grudging, least-worst, vote for In is in effect simply a delayed Out.
Leave need to decide what the alternative is. Is it inside the EEA (in which case they have to address the numerous issues that gives rise to) or a bespoke agreement (in which case they need to explain how we would be able to negotiate such an arrangement) or a Farage like fantasy where Britannia once again rules the waves and all our former colonies bend over backwards to replace any lost trade with the EU.
As Cameron said, of course Britain could survive outside the EU but those in favour of that need to explain why it will be better and address the downsides. And not by the same sort of fantasy nonsense that the Nationalists did.
The answer is to join EFTA with a Swiss-style bilateral deal, as Open Europe has suggested.
I disagree that they should have to say how it would be negotiated. That would be open season for BSE and the Government to phone up their international contacts to say why they'd never agree to such a deal, even if in reality they would.
Britain leaving the EU bears no comparison to Scottish independence. The proposal to return to the status quo ante-bellum prior to 1973, when we were members of EFTA, is an unremarkable one.
Surely Scotland leaving the Union would be a return to the status quo pre 1715?
Not too sure the skeleton hand of George Elector of Hanover waving from the a State coach en-route to open parliament has quite the same majesty.
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
Leave can also - to an extent - learn from the indyref: a grassroots campaign based on persuasive conversations with friends and family.
That probably moved the indyref from a 65/35 result to a 55/45, and a 10% swing is no mean feat.
Leave should do the same: the objective here if a win is out of the question is to run Remain very close, so that the issue isn't closed down for a generation. Losing by a smaller margin that Yes did in Scotland last year would probably be enough to ensure it stays simmering in the background.
I agree with that. That means that Leave needs to come out with a positive vision of a post-exit future rather than simply criticising the present. People won't join a grassroots campaign to carp and grumble.
They have. The likes of Dan Hannah have mapped out a very positive vision.
Do you think that's what the public are seeing and hearing?
The public will see and hear what they wish to
"You think it is nasty? You ain't seen nothing yet."
Yes, and Remain needs to watch their scaremongering.
Remain and Leave have different problems. Though I agree that the Remain campaign has also been appalling so far. Vote Leave are behaving idiotically at present, mind.
I'm now in the leave camp, but one of the problems they ve always had is overreacting to everything.
This is the biggest concern to British people and i think that is why REMAIN have sought to establish a narrative that only thickos care about it and that the most popular leader in Britain, who majors on immigration and identified as the key issue, is unpopular and so, marginalised.
Vote Leave may appeal to the intellectual musings of les indecideds on here, but they won't win over the masses... the only thing that will win it for LEAVE is immigration
It's to be remembered that in the sycophantic world of pb Tories Dave walks on water.
He did just win us a general election after being told for years that we'd never win a majority again.
No, you just won a general election for him. Big difference.
I'm pretty sure that was the only way for the Tories to win a majority given he was the leader of the Tory party.
The Tories didn't win. Cameron used the Tory party as a vehicle to gain power. He's now vigorously pursuing a dismal authoritarian internationalist agenda which has nothing to do with Toryism, whilst you congratulate each other on your 'win'.
For somebody who writes such lucid articles your stance on this topic is bizarre. You seem to think that if we vote OUT the "angry little Englander nutters" will be forming a govt.
Whoever forms the next govt will be governing under the mandate that we no longer report to Brussels, regardless of the party in power. Its really quite simple.
There are clearly some "angry little Englander nutters" on the Leave side. But there are also a lot of thoughtful and sensible people.
Excluding UKIP the Leave side is very much one of trading freely in a big wide world as opposed to clinging to a failing protectionist market. For me it is a hugely positive and cosmopolitan vision compared to the fading imperial ambitions of the Europhiles.
James Dyson loses EU battle over vacuum cleaners British inventor wanted to scrap EU energy labelling rules, claiming they allowed rivals to achieve misleadingly good efficiency ratings.
This is as good an example of EU corruption and inefficiency as you will read anywhere, and how all entrepreneurs are likely to suffer from the bureaucrats dead hand.
Never mind. UKIP's '102 MPs' can rally to his cause.
Margot Parker MEP is on board. “I personally bought a Dyson last week but had I known this ECJ judgment was coming I would have bought two of them.” Clown's overpaid if she can splash out on a couple.
For many the labels are quite a useful pointer to which products to avoid. Still, the billionaire Dyson has garnered much free publicity for his expensive vacuum cleaners.
If you bothered to read what the ECJ said they absolutely accepted Dyson's claims about traditional vacuum cleaners and the massive drop in efficiency as soon as they start to be used in the real world. The reason they ruled against him was the claim that there is no test which can be used to measure the real efficiency. Something which is absolute bollocks.
But these EU water babies just will not read or understand any facts that besmirches their beloved Brussels Sprouts.
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
Leave can also - to an extent - learn from the indyref: a grassroots campaign based on persuasive conversations with friends and family.
That probably moved the indyref from a 65/35 result to a 55/45, and a 10% swing is no mean feat.
Leave should do the same: the objective here if a win is out of the question is to run Remain very close, so that the issue isn't closed down for a generation. Losing by a smaller margin that Yes did in Scotland last year would probably be enough to ensure it stays simmering in the background.
I agree with that. That means that Leave needs to come out with a positive vision of a post-exit future rather than simply criticising the present. People won't join a grassroots campaign to carp and grumble.
They have. The likes of Dan Hannah have mapped out a very positive vision.
Do you think that's what the public are seeing and hearing?
Not so much, to my chagrin. However, I understand Leave has done quite a lot of market research confirming that their best shot is to run on the money the EU costs us.
I had a similar frustration around the Unionist campaign in the indyref running on pensions and collateral for Scotland, but it didn't exactly inspire.
It's to be remembered that in the sycophantic world of pb Tories Dave walks on water.
He did just win us a general election after being told for years that we'd never win a majority again.
No, you just won a general election for him. Big difference.
I'm pretty sure that was the only way for the Tories to win a majority given he was the leader of the Tory party.
The Tories didn't win. Cameron used the Tory party as a vehicle to gain power. He's now vigorously pursuing a dismal authoritarian internationalist agenda which has nothing to do with Toryism, whilst you congratulate each other on your 'win'.
Last time I checked the Conservative Party (commonly referred to as The Tories, or Tory Scum) won the last election.
It's to be remembered that in the sycophantic world of pb Tories Dave walks on water.
He did just win us a general election after being told for years that we'd never win a majority again.
No, you just won a general election for him. Big difference.
I'm pretty sure that was the only way for the Tories to win a majority given he was the leader of the Tory party.
The Tories didn't win. Cameron used the Tory party as a vehicle to gain power. He's now vigorously pursuing a dismal authoritarian internationalist agenda which has nothing to do with Toryism, whilst you congratulate each other on your 'win'.
Last time I checked the Conservative Party (commonly referred to as The Tories, or Tory Scum) won the last election.
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot y is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
I'm not sure that a single clear I'd fully agree on the necessity of positivity for Remain. A grudging, least-worst, vote for In is in effect simply a delayed Out.
Leave need to decide what the alternative is. Is it inside the EEA (in which case they have to address the numerous issues that gives rise to) or a bespoke agreement (in which case they need to explain how we would be able to negotiate such an arrangement) or a Farage like fantasy where Britannia once again rules the waves and all our former colonies bend over backwards to replace any lost trade with the EU.
As Cameron said, of course Britain could survive outside the EU but those in favour of that need to explain why it will be better and address the downsides. And not by the same sort of fantasy nonsense that the Nationalists did.
The answer is to join EFTA with a Swiss-style bilateral deal, as Open Europe has suggested.
I disagree that they should have to say how it would be negotiated. That would be open season for BSE and the Government to phone up their international contacts to say why they'd never agree to such a deal, even if in reality they would.
Britain leaving the EU bears no comparison to Scottish independence. The proposal to return to the status quo ante-bellum prior to 1973, when we were members of EFTA, is an unremarkable one.
Surely Scotland leaving the Union would be a return to the status quo pre 1715?
Not too sure the skeleton hand of George Elector of Hanover waving from the a State coach en-route to open parliament has quite the same majesty.
Nor am I sure of your emphasis on 1715?
Union of crowns: 1603. Union of nations: 1707.
I remember my Wolf Cub badge
Union received democratic approval: 2014
On such a timescale I think the next "generational" Scottish referendum should be scheduled for 2321.
We might even have had the AV thread by then ....possibly ....
For somebody who writes such lucid articles your stance on this topic is bizarre. You seem to think that if we vote OUT the "angry little Englander nutters" will be forming a govt.
Whoever forms the next govt will be governing under the mandate that we no longer report to Brussels, regardless of the party in power. Its really quite simple.
It's possible that emotions would be running very high after a Leave vote. The rest of the EU might see it as a kick in the teeth, and seek to retaliate, which could result in a nationalistic government in the UK.
It will be won or lost on immigration. This is the biggest concern to British people and i think that is why REMAIN have sought to establish a narrative that only thickos care about it and that the most popular leader in Britain, who majors on immigration and identified as the key issue, is unpopular and so, marginalised. Vote Leave may appeal to the intellectual musings of les indecideds on here, but they won't win over the masses... the only thing that will win it for LEAVE is immigration
Quite horrible to be thought of a little England nutter! Here's how les indecideds imagine the likes of Tyndall. (Project) Sean Fear, and myself on a meet up
There are clearly some "angry little Englander nutters" on the Leave side. But there are also a lot of thoughtful and sensible people.
Excluding UKIP the Leave side is very much one of trading freely in a big wide world as opposed to clinging to a failing protectionist market. For me it is a hugely positive and cosmopolitan vision compared to the fading imperial ambitions of the Europhiles.
I noticed a post of yours the other day proclaiming yourself as a Shakespeare fanatic, so I will inform you of my entertainment yesterday evening.
I was lucky enough to go to the RSC press preview night of Henry V at the Barbican. It was an excellent production, I would recommend you get yourself down there if you can.
My re-connection with Shakespeare is through my daughter, who as an 11 to 15 year old developed a love of his work. Probably didn't do her street cred any good, as I think she was the only one in the class who 'got' Shakespeare! The more productions I see the better it gets.
My vote will ultimately be cast on the vision of Britain's future. I'm currently being offered a choice between undemocratic arrogant bureaucrats and angry little Englander nutters
I can't imagine what 'side' you have more in common with
For somebody who writes such lucid articles your stance on this topic is bizarre. You seem to think that if we vote OUT the "angry little Englander nutters" will be forming a govt.
Whoever forms the next govt will be governing under the mandate that we no longer report to Brussels, regardless of the party in power. Its really quite simple.
It really isn't that simple. The two campaigns are setting forward competing visions of Britain for the future. If Remain win, corporate European Britain will continue to prevail. If Leave win, the tone will be changed. At present, the voices that are coming from the Leave camp are revelling in their nastiness. It is entirely legitimate to wonder whether Britain will become a nastier place if such people win.
As a wider observation, the committed (on both sides) see this in a completely different light from the uncommitted. In many ways the Remain faithful and the Leave faithful have more in common with each other than they do with those who have yet to make their minds up. I'm putting a post together that expands much more on my views on this subject which if Mike chooses to publish I hope will give both sides something to chew on.
We heard the opposite argument that pensioners shouldn't vote in the Scottish referendum because they were old-fashioned stick-in-the-muds, remembered and were obsessed by the war and would be dead in a few years anyway.
You could equally say they are older and wiser heads, with a lot of experience, and more likely to make informed decisions.
Yes, that's right. For that reason, I'm not intellectually persuaded that we should have an age limit - the assessment is always coloured by generalisations about what young/old people are like. If our concern is that young people are too ill-informed, a basic knowledge test at all ages would be more logical.
In the real world, of course, neither a knowledge test nor votes at age 5 are going to happen, but votes from 16 probably reflect a general current feeling of the time when people edge into maturity and need to start making decisions about the coming years.
On such a timescale I think the next "generational" Scottish referendum should be scheduled for 2321.
We might even have had the AV thread by then ....possibly ....
TSE's consciousness will be downloaded to a supercomputer (perhaps Deep Vote) where it will continue to review and revise the AV magnum opus until its glorious publication sometime in the early 2300s... some of us may be as old as JackW by that point
Leave can also - to an extent - learn from the indyref: a grassroots campaign based on persuasive conversations with friends and family.
That probably moved the indyref from a 65/35 result to a 55/45, and a 10% swing is no mean feat.
Leave should do the same: the objective here if a win is out of the question is to run Remain very close, so that the issue isn't closed down for a generation. Losing by a smaller margin that Yes did in Scotland last year would probably be enough to ensure it stays simmering in the background.
Support for Independence has never been above 30%, historically a figure of about 25% is broadly accurate to where the support lay. So the real swing was something between 15% and 20% to Independence.
That was based on the Independence side winning all the arguments. Economic, Social, Accountability every argument was a walkover for Independence (whether you agree with those arguments or not). The problem was the entrenched Loyalist brigade and Fear of Change. But in rational terms the referendum was a huge win for Scotland and set up eventual Independence, that 45% won't roll back.
The Kippers don't have the same argument. Racism and Xenophobia aren't rational, winnable arguments. It is very unlikely that the Kippers can successfully move opinion enough. I do hope I am wrong and they can find some lie that is believable enough, the ideal, of course is a Out vote overall as it makes Scottish Independence a formality.
There are clearly some "angry little Englander nutters" on the Leave side. But there are also a lot of thoughtful and sensible people.
Of course it's a false choice. Not everyone on the Remain side is an undemocratic arrogant bureaucrat either. Those are the images that the two sides are currently projecting. Neither side seems to have any interest in changing public perceptions of it. We're entitled to judge them on that basis.
If David Cameron succeeds in his efforts to negotiate a better deal from the EU, our new poll shows that he adds 10 points to the power of the remain campaign's argument with swing voters. But that is far from the biggest prize when it comes to winning the referendum.
For somebody who writes such lucid articles your stance on this topic is bizarre. You seem to think that if we vote OUT the "angry little Englander nutters" will be forming a govt.
Whoever forms the next govt will be governing under the mandate that we no longer report to Brussels, regardless of the party in power. Its really quite simple.
It really isn't that simple. The two campaigns are setting forward competing visions of Britain for the future. If Remain win, corporate European Britain will continue to prevail. If Leave win, the tone will be changed. At present, the voices that are coming from the Leave camp are revelling in their nastiness. It is entirely legitimate to wonder whether Britain will become a nastier place if such people win.
As a wider observation, the committed (on both sides) see this in a completely different light from the uncommitted. In many ways the Remain faithful and the Leave faithful have more in common with each other than they do with those who have yet to make their minds up. I'm putting a post together that expands much more on my views on this subject which if Mike chooses to publish I hope will give both sides something to chew on.
You refer to nastiness, how many of the nastys will be part of the govt in 2020?
The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)
Ten year olds pay tax every time they buy a toy with their pocket money. Should they have the vote as well?
A 16yo can leave school, get a job, get married. The idea they should be barred from voting is ridiculous.
For somebody who writes such lucid articles your stance on this topic is bizarre. You seem to think that if we vote OUT the "angry little Englander nutters" will be forming a govt.
Whoever forms the next govt will be governing under the mandate that we no longer report to Brussels, regardless of the party in power. Its really quite simple.
It really isn't that simple. The two campaigns are setting forward competing visions of Britain for the future. If Remain win, corporate European Britain will continue to prevail. If Leave win, the tone will be changed. At present, the voices that are coming from the Leave camp are revelling in their nastiness. It is entirely legitimate to wonder whether Britain will become a nastier place if such people win.
As a wider observation, the committed (on both sides) see this in a completely different light from the uncommitted. In many ways the Remain faithful and the Leave faithful have more in common with each other than they do with those who have yet to make their minds up. I'm putting a post together that expands much more on my views on this subject which if Mike chooses to publish I hope will give both sides something to chew on.
You refer to nastiness, how many of the nastys will be part of the govt in 2020?
Who can tell? If we vote Leave, politics in Britain will be transformed. What we do know is that those who are currently revelling in their nastiness will have won. Their influence can only increase.
The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)
Ten year olds pay tax every time they buy a toy with their pocket money. Should they have the vote as well?
A 16yo can leave school, get a job, get married. The idea they should be barred from voting is ridiculous.
Don't they need parental consent to get married at 16?
Perhaps our rulers believe that 16 year olds have to enjoy a merit good for anther two years.
Cheaper to keep kids at school than paying them benefits, keeps the number of NEETS down
Hiding Unemployment through keeping 16 and 17 year olds in school for no positive reason or through sending 50% of the population to University benefits no-one and appears to have quite a high long term cost both to the nation and the individual.
Perhaps our rulers believe that 16 year olds have to enjoy a merit good for anther two years.
Cheaper to keep kids at school than paying them benefits, keeps the number of NEETS down
Hiding Unemployment through keeping 16 and 17 year olds in school for no positive reason or through sending 50% of the population to University benefits no-one and appears to have quite a high long term cost both to the nation and the individual.
Especially if they are from England go to uni in Scotland... well, only a long term cost to the individual there
The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)
Ten year olds pay tax every time they buy a toy with their pocket money. Should they have the vote as well?
A 16yo can leave school, get a job, get married. The idea they should be barred from voting is ridiculous.
Don't they need parental consent to get married at 16?
The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)
Ten year olds pay tax every time they buy a toy with their pocket money. Should they have the vote as well?
A 16yo can leave school, get a job, get married. The idea they should be barred from voting is ridiculous.
Don't they need parental consent to get married at 16?
On topic sort of, I'm reading Why the Tories Won: The Inside Story of the 2015 Election by Tim Ross, and it is interesting the Tories/Lynton Crosby just decided to ignore the issue of immigration during the election campaign and focus on the economy. They knew they couldn't win on the former but could win on the latter.
For Jeremy Corbyn’s army of zealous supporters, the past two months have not been a period of self-definition, of course. Instead they have been a period during which their hero has been under sustained attack from a feral press, treacherous shadow ministers and red Tory Blairite activists. But if you look at the list of things that have come to negatively define the opening months of the Corbyn era – the privy council row, the anthem row, the shadow cabinet appointments row, the John McDonnell IRA controversy, the fiscal charter u-turn, the ineffectual PMQs sessions – every single one of them is a self-inflicted wound. And every single-one of them could have been easily avoided by Jeremy Corbyn himself.
On topic sort of, I'm reading Why the Tories Won: The Inside Story of the 2015 Election by Tim Ross, and it is interesting the Tories/Lynton Crosby just decided to ignore the issue of immigration during the election campaign and focus on the economy. They knew they couldn't win on the former but could win on the latter.
A lesson for Remain?
I thought the focus was on portraying Alex Salmond as a thief personally :P.
The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)
Ten year olds pay tax every time they buy a toy with their pocket money. Should they have the vote as well?
A 16yo can leave school, get a job, get married. The idea they should be barred from voting is ridiculous.
Don't they need parental consent to get married at 16?
And its not ridiculous that they cannot vote either. They cannot smoke or drink at 16. Just because you can generate sperm or ovulate does not correlate to voting.
The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)
Ten year olds pay tax every time they buy a toy with their pocket money. Should they have the vote as well?
A 16yo can leave school, get a job, get married. The idea they should be barred from voting is ridiculous.
Don't they need parental consent to get married at 16?
Perhaps our rulers believe that 16 year olds have to enjoy a merit good for anther two years.
Cheaper to keep kids at school than paying them benefits, keeps the number of NEETS down
Hiding Unemployment through keeping 16 and 17 year olds in school for no positive reason or through sending 50% of the population to University benefits no-one and appears to have quite a high long term cost both to the nation and the individual.
Correct, its the biggest mistake in recent political history, consigning youngsters to a mountain of debt to gain worthless degrees. Actually it wasn't a mistake it was a disgraceful, cynical act of vandalism.
On topic sort of, I'm reading Why the Tories Won: The Inside Story of the 2015 Election by Tim Ross, and it is interesting the Tories/Lynton Crosby just decided to ignore the issue of immigration during the election campaign and focus on the economy. They knew they couldn't win on the former but could win on the latter.
A lesson for Remain?
I thought the focus was on portraying Alex Salmond as a thief personally :P.
The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)
Ten year olds pay tax every time they buy a toy with their pocket money. Should they have the vote as well?
A 16yo can leave school, get a job, get married. The idea they should be barred from voting is ridiculous.
Don't they need parental consent to get married at 16?
No. No UK Citizen requires parental permission to get married at 16. They may be required to get married in a different constituent country to that which they reside in but they are not barred from doing this.
There are clearly some "angry little Englander nutters" on the Leave side. But there are also a lot of thoughtful and sensible people.
Of course it's a false choice. Not everyone on the Remain side is an undemocratic arrogant bureaucrat either. Those are the images that the two sides are currently projecting. Neither side seems to have any interest in changing public perceptions of it. We're entitled to judge them on that basis.
The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)
Ten year olds pay tax every time they buy a toy with their pocket money. Should they have the vote as well?
A 16yo can leave school, get a job, get married. The idea they should be barred from voting is ridiculous.
Don't they need parental consent to get married at 16?
No. No UK Citizen requires parental permission to get married at 16. They may be required to get married in a different constituent country to that which they reside in but they are not barred from doing this.
If they get married in England, they are required to get permission. Regardless of the practicalities, the requirement that someone that age get consent was there for a reason.
The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)
Ten year olds pay tax every time they buy a toy with their pocket money. Should they have the vote as well?
A 16yo can leave school, get a job, get married. The idea they should be barred from voting is ridiculous.
Don't they need parental consent to get married at 16?
And its not ridiculous that they cannot vote either. They cannot smoke or drink at 16. Just because you can generate sperm or ovulate does not correlate to voting.
The restrictions on smoking and drinking are neither meaningful or effective from what I can see. Indeed the fact that it is often as hard to get alcohol for a 16yo as it is other mood altering drugs means that instead of a (apparently preferred) forced choice they have an unenforced choice on how to get hammered at the weekend.
Society at large would benefit greatly from all the various (and ridiculous) ages of consent/majority/accountability be unified at the historic age of adulthood which, in my country, is 16.
The only way Leave can win this is if Cameron comes back from his negotiations and says that is not good enough. Of course those committed to Leave don't believe that he would ever do that so they attack him relentlessly. Thus making their own prediction all the more likely of course.
There are a lot of lessons to be learned by both sides from the Indyref. One is that it is fatal not to have a single, clear alternative which Leave coalesces on and which enables their spokesmen to give credible answers to hard questions. I see no sign at all of that happening.
Another, from the Unionist campaign, is that a campaign that is built on fear and negativity is not as attractive as it should be. Darling and his ilk found it far too hard to say what a great country this is and how proud we are to be a part of it. The Remain campaign needs to learn from his mistakes.
Leave can also - to an extent - learn from the indyref: a grassroots campaign based on persuasive conversations with friends and family.
That probably moved the indyref from a 65/35 result to a 55/45, and a 10% swing is no mean feat.
Leave should do the same: the objective here if a win is out of the question is to run Remain very close, so that the issue isn't closed down for a generation. Losing by a smaller margin that Yes did in Scotland last year would probably be enough to ensure it stays simmering in the background.
I agree with that. That means that Leave needs to come out with a positive vision of a post-exit future rather than simply criticising the present. People won't join a grassroots campaign to carp and grumble.
They have. The likes of Dan Hannah have mapped out a very positive vision.
Do you think that's what the public are seeing and hearing?
Not so much, to my chagrin. However, I understand Leave has done quite a lot of market research confirming that their best shot is to run on the money the EU costs us.
I had a similar frustration around the Unionist campaign in the indyref running on pensions and collateral for Scotland, but it didn't exactly inspire.
I suspect that's what they've found switches the most votes from Remain to Leave.
For more politically engaged/aware people like ourselves, that isn't going to impress but we are a small minority.
It really isn't that simple. The two campaigns are setting forward competing visions of Britain for the future.
Far from simple, Mr Antifrank. There are lots of positions and lots of different outcomes which different people would like to see. Personally, I am opposed to most of what I am hearing, from "both" sides.
At the end of the day, the vote will be determined by Mr Cameron's figleaf. Since that is the issue- as is Mr Cameron himself - I suspect that most people will vote against him. After all, he could not even win the support of 25% of the registered voters in May.
Does it really matter? I think not. This referendum is just a charade, designed to go through the motions in order to keep the Tory Party united for a few months. Mr Cameron has no vision - he is uninspiring, and at times I have the feeling that he has given up hope.
The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)
Ten year olds pay tax every time they buy a toy with their pocket money. Should they have the vote as well?
A 16yo can leave school, get a job, get married. The idea they should be barred from voting is ridiculous.
Don't they need parental consent to get married at 16?
In England, Wales and NI, yes. Not in Scotland. That's why people used to elope to Gretna Green.
Leave can also - to an extent - learn from the indyref: a grassroots campaign based on persuasive conversations with friends and family.
That probably moved the indyref from a 65/35 result to a 55/45, and a 10% swing is no mean feat.
Leave should do the same: the objective here if a win is out of the question is to run Remain very close, so that the issue isn't closed down for a generation. Losing by a smaller margin that Yes did in Scotland last year would probably be enough to ensure it stays simmering in the background.
Support for Independence has never been above 30%, historically a figure of about 25% is broadly accurate to where the support lay. So the real swing was something between 15% and 20% to Independence.
That was based on the Independence side winning all the arguments. Economic, Social, Accountability every argument was a walkover for Independence (whether you agree with those arguments or not). The problem was the entrenched Loyalist brigade and Fear of Change. But in rational terms the referendum was a huge win for Scotland and set up eventual Independence, that 45% won't roll back.
The Kippers don't have the same argument. Racism and Xenophobia aren't rational, winnable arguments. It is very unlikely that the Kippers can successfully move opinion enough. I do hope I am wrong and they can find some lie that is believable enough, the ideal, of course is a Out vote overall as it makes Scottish Independence a formality.
The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)
Ten year olds pay tax every time they buy a toy with their pocket money. Should they have the vote as well?
A 16yo can leave school, get a job, get married. The idea they should be barred from voting is ridiculous.
Don't they need parental consent to get married at 16?
No. No UK Citizen requires parental permission to get married at 16. They may be required to get married in a different constituent country to that which they reside in but they are not barred from doing this.
If they get married in England, they are required to get permission. Regardless of the practicalities, the requirement that someone that age get consent was there for a reason.
What reason is that? Divorce rates in England are higher than in Scotland.
In any case. The contention made was that you require parental consent to get married at 16. This is not true. It might require you take a train but it is a perfectly valid and legal option for ANY citizen of the UK regardless of where they live.
For somebody who writes such lucid articles your stance on this topic is bizarre. You seem to think that if we vote OUT the "angry little Englander nutters" will be forming a govt.
Whoever forms the next govt will be governing under the mandate that we no longer report to Brussels, regardless of the party in power. Its really quite simple.
It really isn't that simple. The two campaigns are setting forward competing visions of Britain for the future. If Remain win, corporate European Britain will continue to prevail. If Leave win, the tone will be changed. At present, the voices that are coming from the Leave camp are revelling in their nastiness. It is entirely legitimate to wonder whether Britain will become a nastier place if such people win.
As a wider observation, the committed (on both sides) see this in a completely different light from the uncommitted. In many ways the Remain faithful and the Leave faithful have more in common with each other than they do with those who have yet to make their minds up. I'm putting a post together that expands much more on my views on this subject which if Mike chooses to publish I hope will give both sides something to chew on.
You refer to nastiness, how many of the nastys will be part of the govt in 2020?
Who can tell? If we vote Leave, politics in Britain will be transformed. What we do know is that those who are currently revelling in their nastiness will have won. Their influence can only increase.
On the bright side, it might transform politics across the EU making them far more consultative and democratic for fear of a second member state following.
"It really isn't that simple. The two campaigns are setting forward competing visions of Britain for the future. If Remain win, corporate European Britain will continue to prevail. If Leave win, the tone will be changed. At present, the voices that are coming from the Leave camp are revelling in their nastiness. It is entirely legitimate to wonder whether Britain will become a nastier place if such people win"
I think that hit's the nail on the head and is the reason why in the end "REMAIN" will win by a bigger distance than most people think.The only caveat is that there is a section of the population living in locations of which I know noting that are anti foreigner. I personally know none but remember twenty or thirty years ago when it often felt that whole towns and villages were inhabited by the cast of the Wicker Man.
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)
Ten year olds pay tax every time they buy a toy with their pocket money. Should they have the vote as well?
A 16yo can leave school, get a job, get married. The idea they should be barred from voting is ridiculous.
Not entirely true.
School leaving age
Your school leaving age depends on where you live. England
You can leave school on the last Friday in June if you’ll be 16 by the end of the summer holidays.
You must then do one of the following until you’re 18:
stay in full-time education, eg at a college start an apprenticeship or traineeship work or volunteer (for 20 hours or more a week) while in part-time education or training
Scotland
If you turn 16 between 1 March and 30 September you can leave school after 31 May of that year.
If you turn 16 between 1 October and the end of February you can leave at the start of the Christmas holidays in that school year. Wales
You can leave school on the last Friday in June, as long as you’ll be 16 by the end of that school year’s summer holidays. Northern Ireland
If you turn 16 during the school year (between 1 September and 1 July) you can leave school after 30 June.
If you turn 16 between 2 July and 31 August you can’t leave school until 30 June the following year.
The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)
Ten year olds pay tax every time they buy a toy with their pocket money. Should they have the vote as well?
A 16yo can leave school, get a job, get married. The idea they should be barred from voting is ridiculous.
Don't they need parental consent to get married at 16?
In England, Wales and NI, yes. Not in Scotland. That's why people used to elope to Gretna Green.
There are clearly some "angry little Englander nutters" on the Leave side. But there are also a lot of thoughtful and sensible people.
Excluding UKIP the Leave side is very much one of trading freely in a big wide world as opposed to clinging to a failing protectionist market. For me it is a hugely positive and cosmopolitan vision compared to the fading imperial ambitions of the Europhiles.
I noticed a post of yours the other day proclaiming yourself as a Shakespeare fanatic, so I will inform you of my entertainment yesterday evening.
I was lucky enough to go to the RSC press preview night of Henry V at the Barbican. It was an excellent production, I would recommend you get yourself down there if you can.
My re-connection with Shakespeare is through my daughter, who as an 11 to 15 year old developed a love of his work. Probably didn't do her street cred any good, as I think she was the only one in the class who 'got' Shakespeare! The more productions I see the better it gets.
Many thanks for that Philip. One of the great things for me in recent years has been the live broadcasts of plays into cinemas so I am seeing far more Shakespeare now than I ever used to.
This is the biggest concern to British people and i think that is why REMAIN have sought to establish a narrative that only thickos care about it and that the most popular leader in Britain, who majors on immigration and identified as the key issue, is unpopular and so, marginalised.
Vote Leave may appeal to the intellectual musings of les indecideds on here, but they won't win over the masses... the only thing that will win it for LEAVE is immigration
Yes, but an immigration focused campaign won't win over the swing voter.
What they need to do is to have one campaign that focuses on immigration and another that tries to present a more "reasonable" face for media/political consumption.
We heard the opposite argument that pensioners shouldn't vote in the Scottish referendum because they were old-fashioned stick-in-the-muds, remembered and were obsessed by the war and would be dead in a few years anyway.
You could equally say they are older and wiser heads, with a lot of experience, and more likely to make informed decisions.
Yes, that's right. For that reason, I'm not intellectually persuaded that we should have an age limit - the assessment is always coloured by generalisations about what young/old people are like. If our concern is that young people are too ill-informed, a basic knowledge test at all ages would be more logical.
In the real world, of course, neither a knowledge test nor votes at age 5 are going to happen, but votes from 16 probably reflect a general current feeling of the time when people edge into maturity and need to start making decisions about the coming years.
The simple system would be to weight someone's vote by how long, according to national projections, they are expected to live. Clearly the young have a much greater interest in this than oldies like me.
The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)
Ten year olds pay tax every time they buy a toy with their pocket money. Should they have the vote as well?
A 16yo can leave school, get a job, get married. The idea they should be barred from voting is ridiculous.
Don't they need parental consent to get married at 16?
No. No UK Citizen requires parental permission to get married at 16. They may be required to get married in a different constituent country to that which they reside in but they are not barred from doing this.
That is a ridiculous argument. Like saying UK citizens can buy beer and wine legally at the age of 16 - as long as they go to Germany to do so.
Being able to marry at the age of sixteen in Scotland without parental permission says a lot about the Scots..It is not something to be proud about...total idiocy .
This is the biggest concern to British people and i think that is why REMAIN have sought to establish a narrative that only thickos care about it and that the most popular leader in Britain, who majors on immigration and identified as the key issue, is unpopular and so, marginalised.
Vote Leave may appeal to the intellectual musings of les indecideds on here, but they won't win over the masses... the only thing that will win it for LEAVE is immigration
Yes, but an immigration focused campaign won't win over the swing voter.
What they need to do is to have one campaign that focuses on immigration and another that tries to present a more "reasonable" face for media/political consumption.
The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)
Ten year olds pay tax every time they buy a toy with their pocket money. Should they have the vote as well?
A 16yo can leave school, get a job, get married. The idea they should be barred from voting is ridiculous.
Don't they need parental consent to get married at 16?
In England, Wales and NI, yes. Not in Scotland. That's why people used to elope to Gretna Green.
25 days notice but you can give that in advance and turn up on the day by train or whatever from any part of the UK.
There's no strong argument to justify withholding the vote from 16 year olds. By that age, they'll have learnt about - and been tested on;
Parliamentary democracy and the key elements of the constitution of the United Kingdom, including the power of government, the role of citizens and Parliament in holding those in power to account, and the different roles of the executive, legislature and judiciary and a free press
The different electoral systems used in and beyond the United Kingdom and actions citizens can take in democratic and electoral processes to influence decisions locally, nationally and beyond
Other systems and forms of government, both democratic and non-democratic, beyond the United Kingdom
Local, regional and international governance and the United Kingdom’s relations with the rest of Europe, the Commonwealth, the United Nations and the wider world
Human rights and international law
The legal system in the UK, different sources of law and how the law helps society deal with complex problems
Diverse national, regional, religious and ethnic identities in the United Kingdom and the need for mutual respect and understanding
The different ways in which a citizen can contribute to the improvement of his or her community, to include the opportunity to participate actively in community volunteering, as well as other forms of responsible activity
Income and expenditure, credit and debt, insurance, savings and pensions, financial products and services, and how public money is raised and spent.
The simple system would be to weight someone's vote by how long, according to national projections, they are expected to live. Clearly the young have a much greater interest in this than oldies like me.
What reason is that? Divorce rates in England are higher than in Scotland.
In any case. The contention made was that you require parental consent to get married at 16. This is not true. It might require you take a train but it is a perfectly valid and legal option for ANY citizen of the UK regardless of where they live.
Not sure what the divorce rate has to do with anything, although I would suggest that those marrying at 16 may be more likely to divorce.
Fair enough, but they could probably go to all number of countries to get married under the age of 18 if they wanted. The fact that there is a requirement in law to get permission of you are getting married in England is the point, regardless of any loopholes that may exist. Those who first established that age probably though it was one at which people reach sufficient maturity to make these decisions on their own (and judging by the woeful divorce rate for young marriages, they would be right).
We heard the opposite argument that pensioners shouldn't vote in the Scottish referendum because they were old-fashioned stick-in-the-muds, remembered and were obsessed by the war and would be dead in a few years anyway.
You could equally say they are older and wiser heads, with a lot of experience, and more likely to make informed decisions.
Yes, that's right. For that reason, I'm not intellectually persuaded that we should have an age limit - the assessment is always coloured by generalisations about what young/old people are like. If our concern is that young people are too ill-informed, a basic knowledge test at all ages would be more logical.
In the real world, of course, neither a knowledge test nor votes at age 5 are going to happen, but votes from 16 probably reflect a general current feeling of the time when people edge into maturity and need to start making decisions about the coming years.
The simple system would be to weight someone's vote by how long, according to national projections, they are expected to live. Clearly the young have a much greater interest in this than oldies like me.
By that logic, my 9-year-old should be accorded a vote which is more heavily weighted than my own. And her 2-year-old cousin should have an even more heavily weighted vote. Meanwhile, by 92-year-old father-in-law should be deprived of the vote altogether.
The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)
Ten year olds pay tax every time they buy a toy with their pocket money. Should they have the vote as well?
A 16yo can leave school, get a job, get married. The idea they should be barred from voting is ridiculous.
Don't they need parental consent to get married at 16?
No. No UK Citizen requires parental permission to get married at 16. They may be required to get married in a different constituent country to that which they reside in but they are not barred from doing this.
That is a ridiculous argument. Like saying UK citizens can buy beer and wine legally at the age of 16 - as long as they go to Germany to do so.
Whether or not you find it ridiculous isn't relevant. There is no legal bar and no lawful impediment to any 16yo citizen of the UK from getting married without parental consent. All they need to do is go online, book their wedding and register their notice period then turn up on the day and it's done.
It comes down to whether we want to live in the country that Britain has become. Comfortable with all races creeds sexual orientation etc or whether we prefer a narrow nationalism. Even if that's not how it should be seen be I'm sure that that's how the argument will eventually break down.
It will be framed as a battle against 'little englanders' and as I said before the country has moved on
Tony Abbott also warned that Malcolm Turnbull, who ousted Abbott as prime minister after winning a party challenge in September, would find it difficult to overhaul Australia’s tax system because of “the ‘no one can be worse off’ mindset that makes serious reform so hard”.
The argument for including younger voters is that they'll be heavily influenced by the outcome all their lives, to a greater extent than a GE (where the result can more easily be reversed 5 years later). The same argument was used for the Scottish referendum, and I think was generally seen to have worked out well - those younger voters who took part seemed genuinely engaged and keen to vote for whatever they felt was a better future. DavidL IIRC became a convert to votes at 16 generally.
But yes, I do think it's the thin end of the wedge and it will come at elections in due course. All limits are abritrary (there is a case for suggesting that people who feel able to make a decision should be allowed to vote at any age! - are we sure that every adult is more judicious than every child?) but basically kids grow up faster and most 16 year olds as comparably mature to most 18 year olds. I'm not sure it will always benefit the left as some hope or fear, though.
Just to add to this, as many 16 year olds work (some full-time) and therefore pay national insurance and possibly some tax, there is also the long-established principle of 'no taxation without representation' to consider. Incidentally, that's also a strong argument for non-British residents to be given the vote in national elections (and with that, ducks for cover ...)
Ten year olds pay tax every time they buy a toy with their pocket money. Should they have the vote as well?
A 16yo can leave school, get a job, get married. The idea they should be barred from voting is ridiculous.
A 16 year old cannot sign a legal contract, can't serve on a jury, can't get married without parental consent, can't drink or smoke. In all these matters they are considered too immature to make decisions. Why then should we trust them with something as important as voting?
What reason is that? Divorce rates in England are higher than in Scotland.
In any case. The contention made was that you require parental consent to get married at 16. This is not true. It might require you take a train but it is a perfectly valid and legal option for ANY citizen of the UK regardless of where they live.
Not sure what the divorce rate has to do with anything, although I would suggest that those marrying at 16 may be more likely to divorce.
Fair enough, but they could probably go to all number of countries to get married under the age of 18 if they wanted. The fact that there is a requirement in law to get permission of you are getting married in England is the point, regardless of any loopholes that may exist. Those who first established that age probably though it was one at which people reach sufficient maturity to make these decisions on their own (and judging by the woeful divorce rate for young marriages, they would be right).
I'm sure there are lots of arguments for and against the practice. But the question isn't about the practice it is about the action. And in reality any UK citizen can marry at 16 without parental consent.
We heard the opposite argument that pensioners shouldn't vote in the Scottish referendum because they were old-fashioned stick-in-the-muds, remembered and were obsessed by the war and would be dead in a few years anyway.
You could equally say they are older and wiser heads, with a lot of experience, and more likely to make informed decisions.
Yes, that's right. For that reason, I'm not intellectually persuaded that we should have an age limit - the assessment is always coloured by generalisations about what young/old people are like. If our concern is that young people are too ill-informed, a basic knowledge test at all ages would be more logical.
In the real world, of course, neither a knowledge test nor votes at age 5 are going to happen, but votes from 16 probably reflect a general current feeling of the time when people edge into maturity and need to start making decisions about the coming years.
The simple system would be to weight someone's vote by how long, according to national projections, they are expected to live. Clearly the young have a much greater interest in this than oldies like me.
By that logic, my 9-year-old should be accorded a vote which is more heavily weighted than my own. And her 2-year-old cousin should have an even more heavily weighted vote. Meanwhile, by 92-year-old father-in-law should be deprived of the vote altogether.
lol.
Vote the toddlers party!
No bedtime. ever. Play Frozen on repeat, every evening. Free Elsa pyjamas for everyone.
What reason is that? Divorce rates in England are higher than in Scotland.
In any case. The contention made was that you require parental consent to get married at 16. This is not true. It might require you take a train but it is a perfectly valid and legal option for ANY citizen of the UK regardless of where they live.
Not sure what the divorce rate has to do with anything, although I would suggest that those marrying at 16 may be more likely to divorce.
Fair enough, but they could probably go to all number of countries to get married under the age of 18 if they wanted. The fact that there is a requirement in law to get permission of you are getting married in England is the point, regardless of any loopholes that may exist. Those who first established that age probably though it was one at which people reach sufficient maturity to make these decisions on their own (and judging by the woeful divorce rate for young marriages, they would be right).
I'm sure there are lots of arguments for and against the practice. But the question isn't about the practice it is about the action. And in reality any UK citizen can marry at 16 without parental consent.
As you keep repeating, without addressing the point of why the restriction (regardless of whether or not it can be easily avoided) is there in the first place.
I can't see any good outcome whether we remain or leave. I don't want to not vote, so I'll probably spoil my vote by writing "think again" across both boxes.
We heard the opposite argument that pensioners shouldn't vote in the Scottish referendum because they were old-fashioned stick-in-the-muds, remembered and were obsessed by the war and would be dead in a few years anyway.
You could equally say they are older and wiser heads, with a lot of experience, and more likely to make informed decisions.
Yes, that's right. For that reason, I'm not intellectually persuaded that we should have an age limit - the assessment is always coloured by generalisations about what young/old people are like. If our concern is that young people are too ill-informed, a basic knowledge test at all ages would be more logical.
In the real world, of course, neither a knowledge test nor votes at age 5 are going to happen, but votes from 16 probably reflect a general current feeling of the time when people edge into maturity and need to start making decisions about the coming years.
The simple system would be to weight someone's vote by how long, according to national projections, they are expected to live. Clearly the young have a much greater interest in this than oldies like me.
By that logic, my 9-year-old should be accorded a vote which is more heavily weighted than my own. And her 2-year-old cousin should have an even more heavily weighted vote. Meanwhile, by 92-year-old father-in-law should be deprived of the vote altogether.
lol.
Vote the toddlers party!
No bedtime. ever. Play Frozen on repeat, every evening. Free Elsa pyjamas for everyone.
There are clearly some "angry little Englander nutters" on the Leave side. But there are also a lot of thoughtful and sensible people.
Of course it's a false choice. Not everyone on the Remain side is an undemocratic arrogant bureaucrat either. Those are the images that the two sides are currently projecting. Neither side seems to have any interest in changing public perceptions of it. We're entitled to judge them on that basis.
Perhaps I should introduce you to some of the people at Business for Britain.
They are certainly not "nutters" in any way, shape or form
We heard the opposite argument that pensioners shouldn't vote in the Scottish referendum because they were old-fashioned stick-in-the-muds, remembered and were obsessed by the war and would be dead in a few years anyway.
You could equally say they are older and wiser heads, with a lot of experience, and more likely to make informed decisions.
Yes, that's right. For that reason, I'm not intellectually persuaded that we should have an age limit - the assessment is always coloured by generalisations about what young/old people are like. If our concern is that young people are too ill-informed, a basic knowledge test at all ages would be more logical.
In the real world, of course, neither a knowledge test nor votes at age 5 are going to happen, but votes from 16 probably reflect a general current feeling of the time when people edge into maturity and need to start making decisions about the coming years.
The simple system would be to weight someone's vote by how long, according to national projections, they are expected to live. Clearly the young have a much greater interest in this than oldies like me.
By that logic, my 9-year-old should be accorded a vote which is more heavily weighted than my own. And her 2-year-old cousin should have an even more heavily weighted vote. Meanwhile, by 92-year-old father-in-law should be deprived of the vote altogether.
lol.
Vote the toddlers party!
No bedtime. ever. Play Frozen on repeat, every evening. Free Elsa pyjamas for everyone.
Veering off slightly but I'm determined to pull the tories on this ridiculous living wage plan.
Those currently earning the min wage will be getting a 25% pay rise, so what happens to those earning more than the min wage but not the living wage - do they get 25% or just enough to get them to the living wage?
And those currently earning the living wage - do they get 25% as well?
Osborne has dug himself a sink hole here in buying votes.
Comments
I had a similar frustration around the Unionist campaign in the indyref running on pensions and collateral for Scotland, but it didn't exactly inspire.
There are clearly some "angry little Englander nutters" on the Leave side. But there are also a lot of thoughtful and sensible people.
The EU and NHS are very similar. They are both really good ideas, the concepts are almost impossible to argue against.
The problem is that not all good ideas work well in practice.
They both have faults that will cause them long term problems and are both unwieldy and unmanageable. They are too slow to adapt and in the end the preservation of the organisation becomes the cause rather than providing the laudable aims of the original concept.
What is school leaving age now?
This is the biggest concern to British people and i think that is why REMAIN have sought to establish a narrative that only thickos care about it and that the most popular leader in Britain, who majors on immigration and identified as the key issue, is unpopular and so, marginalised.
Vote Leave may appeal to the intellectual musings of les indecideds on here, but they won't win over the masses... the only thing that will win it for LEAVE is immigration
For somebody who writes such lucid articles your stance on this topic is bizarre. You seem to think that if we vote OUT the "angry little Englander nutters" will be forming a govt.
Whoever forms the next govt will be governing under the mandate that we no longer report to Brussels, regardless of the party in power. Its really quite simple.
I'd have guessed:
1. Immigration
2. ECHR Daily Mailing a la votes for prisoners, family life rights for child rapists etc
3. Membership cost
4. Everything else
https://www.gov.uk/know-when-you-can-leave-school
Perhaps our rulers believe that 16 year olds have to enjoy a merit good for anther two years.
We might even have had the AV thread by then ....possibly ....
http://youtu.be/0bDY0DfEjmo
Councillor who announced closure of public toilets fined for urinating in street
I love it when I see local politicians piss on their own turf; especially Labour ones.
I noticed a post of yours the other day proclaiming yourself as a Shakespeare fanatic, so I will inform you of my entertainment yesterday evening.
I was lucky enough to go to the RSC press preview night of Henry V at the Barbican. It was an excellent production, I would recommend you get yourself down there if you can.
My re-connection with Shakespeare is through my daughter, who as an 11 to 15 year old developed a love of his work. Probably didn't do her street cred any good, as I think she was the only one in the class who 'got' Shakespeare! The more productions I see the better it gets.
I can't imagine what 'side' you have more in common with
http://order-order.com/2015/11/12/sex-pest-lord-rennard-elected-to-libdem-federal-executive/
Will no one save the Lost Deposit party from itself?
As a wider observation, the committed (on both sides) see this in a completely different light from the uncommitted. In many ways the Remain faithful and the Leave faithful have more in common with each other than they do with those who have yet to make their minds up. I'm putting a post together that expands much more on my views on this subject which if Mike chooses to publish I hope will give both sides something to chew on.
In the real world, of course, neither a knowledge test nor votes at age 5 are going to happen, but votes from 16 probably reflect a general current feeling of the time when people edge into maturity and need to start making decisions about the coming years.
That was based on the Independence side winning all the arguments. Economic, Social, Accountability every argument was a walkover for Independence (whether you agree with those arguments or not). The problem was the entrenched Loyalist brigade and Fear of Change. But in rational terms the referendum was a huge win for Scotland and set up eventual Independence, that 45% won't roll back.
The Kippers don't have the same argument. Racism and Xenophobia aren't rational, winnable arguments. It is very unlikely that the Kippers can successfully move opinion enough. I do hope I am wrong and they can find some lie that is believable enough, the ideal, of course is a Out vote overall as it makes Scottish Independence a formality.
If David Cameron succeeds in his efforts to negotiate a better deal from the EU, our new poll shows that he adds 10 points to the power of the remain campaign's argument with swing voters. But that is far from the biggest prize when it comes to winning the referendum.
http://huff.to/1Qx3aGv
A lesson for Remain?
https://www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships/overview
Edit: The book is now £6.02 for t'kindle apps
http://amzn.to/1GY7rRh
Society at large would benefit greatly from all the various (and ridiculous) ages of consent/majority/accountability be unified at the historic age of adulthood which, in my country, is 16.
For more politically engaged/aware people like ourselves, that isn't going to impress but we are a small minority.
At the end of the day, the vote will be determined by Mr Cameron's figleaf. Since that is the issue- as is Mr Cameron himself - I suspect that most people will vote against him. After all, he could not even win the support of 25% of the registered voters in May.
Does it really matter? I think not. This referendum is just a charade, designed to go through the motions in order to keep the Tory Party united for a few months. Mr Cameron has no vision - he is uninspiring, and at times I have the feeling that he has given up hope.
In any case. The contention made was that you require parental consent to get married at 16. This is not true. It might require you take a train but it is a perfectly valid and legal option for ANY citizen of the UK regardless of where they live.
"It really isn't that simple. The two campaigns are setting forward competing visions of Britain for the future. If Remain win, corporate European Britain will continue to prevail. If Leave win, the tone will be changed. At present, the voices that are coming from the Leave camp are revelling in their nastiness. It is entirely legitimate to wonder whether Britain will become a nastier place if such people win"
I think that hit's the nail on the head and is the reason why in the end "REMAIN" will win by a bigger distance than most people think.The only caveat is that there is a section of the population living in locations of which I know noting that are anti foreigner. I personally know none but remember twenty or thirty years ago when it often felt that whole towns and villages were inhabited by the cast of the Wicker Man.
School leaving age
Your school leaving age depends on where you live.
England
You can leave school on the last Friday in June if you’ll be 16 by the end of the summer holidays.
You must then do one of the following until you’re 18:
stay in full-time education, eg at a college
start an apprenticeship or traineeship
work or volunteer (for 20 hours or more a week) while in part-time education or training
Scotland
If you turn 16 between 1 March and 30 September you can leave school after 31 May of that year.
If you turn 16 between 1 October and the end of February you can leave at the start of the Christmas holidays in that school year.
Wales
You can leave school on the last Friday in June, as long as you’ll be 16 by the end of that school year’s summer holidays.
Northern Ireland
If you turn 16 during the school year (between 1 September and 1 July) you can leave school after 30 June.
If you turn 16 between 2 July and 31 August you can’t leave school until 30 June the following year.
If the polls start to go against remain, I wonder if at some juncture he might think 'f8ck this'.
What they need to do is to have one campaign that focuses on immigration and another that tries to present a more "reasonable" face for media/political consumption.
It is Germany that has allowed Leave into the game, because we are increasingly yoked it its immigration policy.
There's no bl88dy middle way in Germany. Its either world domination or self immolation.
.
Parliamentary democracy and the key elements of the constitution of the United Kingdom, including the power of government, the role of citizens and Parliament in holding those in power to account, and the different roles of the executive, legislature and judiciary and a free press
The different electoral systems used in and beyond the United Kingdom and actions citizens can take in democratic and electoral processes to influence decisions locally, nationally and beyond
Other systems and forms of government, both democratic and non-democratic, beyond the United Kingdom
Local, regional and international governance and the United Kingdom’s relations with the rest of Europe, the Commonwealth, the United Nations and the wider world
Human rights and international law
The legal system in the UK, different sources of law and how the law helps society deal with complex problems
Diverse national, regional, religious and ethnic identities in the United Kingdom and the need for mutual respect and understanding
The different ways in which a citizen can contribute to the improvement of his or her community, to include the opportunity to participate actively in community volunteering, as well as other forms of responsible activity
Income and expenditure, credit and debt, insurance, savings and pensions, financial products and services, and how public money is raised and spent.
So why can't they vote?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239060/SECONDARY_national_curriculum_-_Citizenship.pdf
Fair enough, but they could probably go to all number of countries to get married under the age of 18 if they wanted. The fact that there is a requirement in law to get permission of you are getting married in England is the point, regardless of any loopholes that may exist. Those who first established that age probably though it was one at which people reach sufficient maturity to make these decisions on their own (and judging by the woeful divorce rate for young marriages, they would be right).
It comes down to whether we want to live in the country that Britain has become. Comfortable with all races creeds sexual orientation etc or whether we prefer a narrow nationalism. Even if that's not how it should be seen be I'm sure that that's how the argument will eventually break down.
It will be framed as a battle against 'little englanders' and as I said before the country has moved on
Tony Abbott also warned that Malcolm Turnbull, who ousted Abbott as prime minister after winning a party challenge in September, would find it difficult to overhaul Australia’s tax system because of “the ‘no one can be worse off’ mindset that makes serious reform so hard”.
http://bit.ly/1Y5Z9uP
Vote the toddlers party!
No bedtime. ever.
Play Frozen on repeat, every evening.
Free Elsa pyjamas for everyone.
Not that I did, but quite certain I could have done so legally. When was that changed ?
They are certainly not "nutters" in any way, shape or form
Those currently earning the min wage will be getting a 25% pay rise, so what happens to those earning more than the min wage but not the living wage - do they get 25% or just enough to get them to the living wage?
And those currently earning the living wage - do they get 25% as well?
Osborne has dug himself a sink hole here in buying votes.