Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Lords vote to allow 16-17 year olds to take part in #EU
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Lords vote to allow 16-17 year olds to take part in #EUREF
House of Lords has voted to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the upcoming referendum on EU membership #EUref
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/661093696578957312
'Oh, I see the PBTories have already started claiming it's "unconstitutional" for the Tories not to get everything they want.'
No, just undemocratic..
Nevertheless, they were given the vote for the IndyRef, so the point was conceded, I cannot see how they can be denied it for all other elections. It's not a fight worth having anymore.
I'm a long-term supporter of votes at 16, and proposed a supportive council motion which was passed by a big majority (about half the Tories against) but was interesting that night how all the comments against we're what I'd call distractions - 'the wrong time' 'not a council issue' 'not a priority' I was struck how the lack of substantive arguments against 16 year olds being ready, was a good indicator that the argument was being won nationally.
Obviously helpful for Remain, and hopefully for politicians across the spectrum to have to take youth issues that little more seriously.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUHdG0-W4AEY2rk.jpg
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/637020695478824960
The problem with this is that we can get into a bidding war for making our opponents look bad (did you see what I avoided saying there?!). You think 16 year olds deserve the vote, I say 14 year olds should.
EDIT: What's interesting about the change in 1969 is that it didn't help Labour stay in power.
'If pb.com had been in existence since 1918 , you would find the same backwoodsmen opposing votes for 16/17 year olds now would have opposed votes for women in 1918 , the extension to full franchise for women in 1928 and the reduction in voting age from 21 to 18 in 1969 .
Was the extension of the franchise in 1918 & 1969 approved by a democratically elected government or unelected backwoodsmen in the House of Lords ?
I think it's fair to say that maybe the Tories should have fought against it in the Indy Ref, but no way should that be a precedent for future votes.
In any case there are two principles here - the Lords trying to create constitutional change with no democratic mandate to do so, and the issue itself. Very few serious democracies (just Austria and a couple of third-world countries) give votes to children.
It says in essence no more than what many of us on this forum have been saying for some time now and, given the state Labour and the Left have got themselves into, will no doubt have to continue saying.
Can't see why Tories object.
It's funny what can quickly become seen as the 'obviously correct and fair' thing to do when few people cared previously. Why don't the public swing behind my pet political preferment of changing from FPTP?
Labour = ebsoloot shaaaaaarrrrr
In any case, what has that got to do with anything? It's a curious kind of democrat who thinks the unelected Lords should try to change the constitution against the wishes of the democratically elected government.
Aye, some 16 year old children show a lot more sense than some adults, but frankly most do not. The teenage brain is very much still developing, teens are not a group I would trust to make sensible decisions for themselves, let alone the country.
That said, it is unlikely that most teens would bother to vote except those that do show some thought, interest and maturity.
On the whole this isn't a battle worth fighting.
There was a vote to discuss it properly at length and not rush it through.
And you know that.
Nobody seems to even be mentioning that.
So not only have we got unelected Lords over-riding the wishes of the Commons - they are also over-riding the wishes of the general public.
Buying alcohol and tobacco.
Driving
Marrying without parents consent.
Fighting (and dying) on the front line.
Signing legal contracts.
Serving on Juries.
Getting credit.
Gambling.
Being tried as adults without reporting restrictions.
Serving time in adult jails.
Or is it just voting that you hold in such disdain that you think the age of responsibility should be changed?
Of course you are a Lib Dem and they don't really like democracy after what happened at the last election.
Cameron doesn't have a mandate for anything!
Personally, and as a view I've held since I was that age, I don't think we equip people of that age to take those sorts of decisions, and the patronising way we treat them makes not doing so for this one issue even odder. However, though I note the points some have made about Scotland and the decisions their not necessarily being applicable, I continue to see the permitting of it there as fatally undermining the continued refusal here. I think it's the wrong decision, I think 'young people are to be more affected' is a weak argument for such an important change, but the defence of the status quo is harder now.
Goodness knows where that puts the legitimacy of the lib dem lords.
Anyway lets see how much patience the voters have with bien pensent liberals in the real world.
"There have been various suggestions to lower the age of consent to 14 - in 1998 the New Labour government proposed this, but despite some Left wing and Youth support this had been dropped by early 2003 as lacking support, a decade later in early 2013 the suggestion by civil servants to lower the age of consent to 14 was rejected by the Conservative led coalition"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#History_30
In reality, the Lords has caused trouble for many governments in the past, quite rightly. Did you object when they blocked the 42-day detention proposal by the last Labour government, for example?
And if it should, it needs to be done for all elections in one go, not piecemeal.
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-11-18/police-called-to-school-after-pupil-poses-with-ak-47-on-facebook/
Don't worry he's not old enough to vote.
Lords can only delay one year under Parliament Act 1949 - though I'm unclear precisely how the year is measured - ie what is start date?
Link implies that end of session may be key.
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/parliamentacts/
HOWEVER, the other side of that coin is, the same rules/system that makes the Tories the majority on just 37% of the vote, is the exact same system which has ALWAYS had the "undemocratic" House of Lords capable of standing up to the Commons. So essentially, the Tories can't defend their 37% mandate purely on a "dem's the rules, the principles don't matter" basis, yet then turn around and start saying the Lords are acting out of turn when they equally are acting within the same set of rules/systems.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/?cartoon=12004369&cc=11971107
"The Liberal Democrat grandee Lord Steel has launched the strongest attack yet on Nick Clegg's plans to reform the House of Lords.
The peer, a former leader of the Liberal party, claimed Clegg's radical reforms were a distraction from the evolutionary changes that needed to be made to the second chamber."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/jun/05/david-steel-attacks-cleggs-lord-reform-bill
If it still worked that way then there would be a good case for the survival of the HoL. But like so many other botched 'reforms' Blair simply broke it and moved on.
True, but I doubt there has ever been as flagrant an abuse of the system as that being committed by the lib dem lords.
Their party and their policies were eviscerated at a very recent election, and yet they are still trying to impose both on an electorate that clearly rejected them.
@DPJHodges: At same time several "disloyal" Labour MPs will also be issued with NEC warnings.
But I actually now have to get some work done, so people will be spared my repeating myself further on the matter.
Good night all.
Their idea of a joke, was it?
I'll wait for the upload!
FOR:
Conservative - 1
Crossbench - 36
Labour - 155
Liberal Democrat - 91
Other - 10
TOTAL - 293
AGAINST:
Bishops - 1
Conservative - 172
Crossbench - 28
Labour - 1
Other - 9
TOTAL - 211
So neither Con nor Lab pulled out all the stops today - indeed Con turnout even worse than Lab (as % of Party Peers).
Looks as if Con being discerning - ie only making huge effort when it really matters.
In contrast - very, very high LD turnout - they had 12 more Peers present than for the key vote on Individual Voter Registration - whereas Con had 36 less (and 44 less than they had for Tax Credits).
Having said all that - even if they do pull out all the stops Con cannot win without a substantial net contribution from Crossbenchers - and they lost the Crossbenchers today.
When it comes back again if they go all out Con could probably cut the margin of defeat to between 40 and 50 - beyond that they have to move Crossbenchers - so to win it I reckon they must win the Crossbenchers by about 35.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/business-papers/lords/lords-divisions/?date=2015-Nov-18&itemId=1&session=2015-May-18
*tugs forelock*
Top Tory Stephen Gilbert joins pro-EU polling firm.
All the worms are coming out of the woodwork.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34862235