Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sell BREX, Buy PC, GRN & LDs – My current Commons seats spread

123457

Comments

  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    Out of interest does anyone know how many 16/17 year olds there are, where they are, and whether they have been polled?

    One million more voters split across 650 constituencies is 1500 votes. Doubt it would change the price of fish.

    We're probably only talking about ~10 seats maximum that would have its result changed. Though that might have been enough to prevent a Tory government in 2017.
  • I would love to see Swinson as LOTO and if she did get that she could make a decent future Prime Minister.

    There is far more sense from her than Corbyn.

    Of course you would

    You are a Tory she is a Tory.

    Both voted for Austerity Neither voted against stopping US taking over the NHS Both are happy with the current system.

    Only one Party represents real change and you will never vote for it.
    Absolutely I will never vote for communists.

    I did vote for Labour under Blair. Regretted it, but I did.
  • Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I suspect Nicola will be on the blower to Blackford tonight

    "Do not go near any Labour amendments tomorrow"

    Why would Nicola not want 16- and 17-year-olds to vote? That probably alone would swing their top few target seats to them, even without any "proper" swing from the 2017 results.

    I'd say it's highly likely they will vote yes to a 16/17 amendment, the only question is whether they then pull their support for the main Bill if that amendment is rejected (I think probably not, they'll probably vote for it with or without the amendment, whereas Labour might use it as an excuse to vote against the Bill itself).
    Not going to happen. The one line is going through unamended on the evidence in the HOC just now
    I don't know how you've got that impression. Blackford implied that, while he would still support an election even without a 16/17 year olds amendment, he would still support that amendment. They aren't mutually exclusive, you know; something not being a "priority" or a "red line" doesn't preclude trying to get it if possible.

    Of course, there's no guarantee of a majority for 16/17 year olds, even with SNP support.
    No point as no time to do it

    DUP very annoyed will not support the motion
    I wonder what about ending them being kingmakers the DUP oppose?
  • Out of interest does anyone know how many 16/17 year olds there are, where they are, and whether they have been polled?

    One million more voters split across 650 constituencies is 1500 votes. Doubt it would change the price of fish.

    *ca. 1.5 million.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/timeseries/jn5p/lms

    *agree, unlikely to be evenly distributed but can't imagine you're looking at differences of more than a few hundred per constituency except maybe in the most rural and the most urban.

    *no idea
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,260

    Pretty funny that Corbyn gave as one of his excuses that there's not enough daylight on Dec 12, whilst indicating that he'd be happy with the second week in January.

    Give him his due, he's correct by about half an your, assuming we are talking about the 16th
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Noo said:

    Out of interest does anyone know how many 16/17 year olds there are, where they are, and whether they have been polled?

    One million more voters split across 650 constituencies is 1500 votes. Doubt it would change the price of fish.

    Such votes would not be evenly distributed
    That’s why I asked if there’s been any work anyone knows of on where they are. Your point was pretty implicit in my post.
    You phrased it as a question. I was merely giving a partial answer.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Even by the standards of recent times, which make Alice in Wonderland look like a gritty documentary, this seems surreal. Boris is moving an early dissolution and Labour, at least, is opposing. Tomorrow we will have a bill for an election as well 3 days different. Why the **** does Boris not introduce that bill tonight? What is the point of his motion? Presumably he wants to show how absurdly obstructive Parliament is but anyone who doesn’t know that is simply not paying attention.

    He has lost control. In office but not in power. The only thing BJ likes is power or more precisely the trappings of power. He has crashed his party after only a few weeks by withdrawing the whip to 20 odd MPs...
    Nope. They weren’t going to vote for his policies anyway. He wants an election. Fair enough. FWIW I think that he will win. He should be looking for the shortest line between 2 points, not messing about.
    Its comical how bitter some people are that things are going how Boris wants.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,676
    Labour in same boat as Soubry, DUP not a good look. Support an Election with votes at 16 and put real Change on the table.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,865
    We had 16 year olds voting in the independence referendum. One of them was my daughter. As a 16 year old she was one of Better Together’s better canvassers in Dundee. Informed, articulate and persuasive. Many of her friends were the same and some were on the other side of the argument.

    I came away with a changed mind. People at 16 in Scotland are allowed to marry, consent to sex and have their own house. They can vote. Some will not be mature enough. But some are frankly never mature enough no matter how old they are and they can still vote.

    Now is not the time to make muck about with this but I for one would be in favour of reducing the voting age to 16.
  • Labour in same boat as Soubry, DUP not a good look. Support an Election with votes at 16 and put real Change on the table.

    Not possible for a pre xmas election BJO
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,605

    Can't believe I'm saying this but well said John Redwood.

    What did he say?
    Along the lines of "Parliament needs to either let the government govern or let the public decide".
    Good speech. He was very clear. I'm also impressed again just now by Jo Swinson. Very clear and fast on her feet to interventions. I'm looking forward to her up against Corbyn and Johnson. I'm trying to be objective. I think she may really cut through.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,772
    edited October 2019
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,676

    I would love to see Swinson as LOTO and if she did get that she could make a decent future Prime Minister.

    There is far more sense from her than Corbyn.

    Of course you would

    You are a Tory she is a Tory.

    Both voted for Austerity Neither voted against stopping US taking over the NHS Both are happy with the current system.

    Only one Party represents real change and you will never vote for it.
    Absolutely I will never vote for communists.

    I did vote for Labour under Blair. Regretted it, but I did.
    Which policies in 2017 were Communist?
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,260
    DavidL said:

    We had 16 year olds voting in the independence referendum. One of them was my daughter. As a 16 year old she was one of Better Together’s better canvassers in Dundee. Informed, articulate and persuasive. Many of her friends were the same and some were on the other side of the argument.

    I came away with a changed mind. People at 16 in Scotland are allowed to marry, consent to sex and have their own house. They can vote. Some will not be mature enough. But some are frankly never mature enough no matter how old they are and they can still vote.

    Now is not the time to make muck about with this but I for one would be in favour of reducing the voting age to 16.

    Scottish law is different to English on the age of majority.
  • I sympathise with you
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    Pretty funny that Corbyn gave as one of his excuses that there's not enough daylight on Dec 12, whilst indicating that he'd be happy with the second week in January.

    Well it will be lighter by the second week of January!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,614
    Danny565 said:

    I also don't see why people view votes for 16 and 17 year olds as a "wrecking" amendment, or one that would cause the Tories to pull support for the Bill. I would've thought, even if that amendment passes, they would still support an election; they're too far committed to it now to back down.

    A change to the franchise should at the very least be a manifesto pledge in a party/coalition that gets a majority to implement it.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Floater said:
    I'm surprised you're not obsessively trawling for details on Margaret Hodge's reselection meeting.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,865

    DavidL said:

    We had 16 year olds voting in the independence referendum. One of them was my daughter. As a 16 year old she was one of Better Together’s better canvassers in Dundee. Informed, articulate and persuasive. Many of her friends were the same and some were on the other side of the argument.

    I came away with a changed mind. People at 16 in Scotland are allowed to marry, consent to sex and have their own house. They can vote. Some will not be mature enough. But some are frankly never mature enough no matter how old they are and they can still vote.

    Now is not the time to make muck about with this but I for one would be in favour of reducing the voting age to 16.

    Scottish law is different to English on the age of majority.
    True. But our 16 year olds cope.
  • StreeterStreeter Posts: 684

    Streeter said:

    Chris said:

    Streeter said:

    SNP calling for votes for children and foreignors *rolleyes*

    Foreignors who can’t rite English.
    I thought it was spelled "furriners".
    It’s newspeak.
    It's a typo.
    e and o are next to one another on your keyboard? Russian, is it?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,213
    Votes for 16/17 year olds is a problem for this election because a 15 yr old NOT on the register who is 16 at the time of the election could sue I think.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,772
    Floater said:
    Yet another reason to keep these people away from Downing Street.

  • StreeterStreeter Posts: 684

    Chris said:

    Streeter said:

    Chris said:

    Streeter said:

    SNP calling for votes for children and foreignors *rolleyes*

    Foreignors who can’t rite English.
    I thought it was spelled "furriners".
    It’s newspeak.
    It's a typo.

    I don't think there's no apostrophe in "it's" if you wish to be a grammar Nazi.
    I hope you realise that's a double negative ;-)
    Yeah, I already edited out that line immediately but too slow I guess, I don't particularly want to get into a pissing context about grammar 😂
    Obviously a foreignor.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,652
    The most relevant fact about 16-17 year olds, relative to 18-24 year olds, is that they don't live in the uni and urban constituencies which vote in big numbers for non-Tory parties. Instead, they live in more settled residential areas, particularly in areas with older two-parent nuclear families because, er, those are the families where we observe lots of kids who are 16 and 17.

    So if you were facing against the Conservative Party in a FPTP election, you would happily remove the vote from 20-year olds, stacked up in places like Sheffield, Hallam, as the price to give the vote to 17-year olds, scattered all over the country.
  • Noo said:

    Noo said:

    Out of interest does anyone know how many 16/17 year olds there are, where they are, and whether they have been polled?

    One million more voters split across 650 constituencies is 1500 votes. Doubt it would change the price of fish.

    Such votes would not be evenly distributed
    That’s why I asked if there’s been any work anyone knows of on where they are. Your point was pretty implicit in my post.
    You phrased it as a question. I was merely giving a partial answer.
    Apologies. Vagaries of the internet.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Danny565 said:

    I also don't see why people view votes for 16 and 17 year olds as a "wrecking" amendment, or one that would cause the Tories to pull support for the Bill. I would've thought, even if that amendment passes, they would still support an election; they're too far committed to it now to back down.

    A change to the franchise should at the very least be a manifesto pledge in a party/coalition that gets a majority to implement it.
    It is surely a therwilloftherpeople issue? It is striking how Leaver enthusiasm for referendums fails to generalise beyond referendums held in 2016 and which happened to go their way.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Pulpstar said:

    Votes for 16/17 year olds is a problem for this election because a 15 yr old NOT on the register who is 16 at the time of the election could sue I think.

    They would have the choice of registering before the closing date, exactly the same as anyone older who isn't currently on the electoral register would have, no?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,772
    The Cult have been a little shaken by Jezza's refusal to let them get stuck into the Tories in a GE:

    https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1188831061817602049

  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    If voting is extended to 16s via an amendment to this bill then it would be reasonable for any future government to take a very close interest in voter ID to ensure the expanded franchise was not undermining electoral processes.
  • Out of interest does anyone know how many 16/17 year olds there are, where they are, and whether they have been polled?

    One million more voters split across 650 constituencies is 1500 votes. Doubt it would change the price of fish.

    *ca. 1.5 million.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/timeseries/jn5p/lms

    *agree, unlikely to be evenly distributed but can't imagine you're looking at differences of more than a few hundred per constituency except maybe in the most rural and the most urban.

    *no idea
    Thanks. Yes it feels like something very meaningful for a referendum but of marginal impact on an election.

    Votes for all EU nationals might have more impact, but presumably we’d have to go for all permanent residents rather than just EU; in which case I’m not sure it’s a given they’d split how some hope.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,869
    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Votes for 16/17 year olds is a problem for this election because a 15 yr old NOT on the register who is 16 at the time of the election could sue I think.

    They would have the choice of registering before the closing date, exactly the same as anyone older who isn't currently on the electoral register would have, no?
    Given the tight timescale, it might be better to extend to 17 year olds right away (who should be on the register already) and to 16 year olds later.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Votes for 16/17 year olds is a problem for this election because a 15 yr old NOT on the register who is 16 at the time of the election could sue I think.

    They would have the choice of registering before the closing date, exactly the same as anyone older who isn't currently on the electoral register would have, no?
    There would be an uptick in the number of registrations, but I'd hate to think anybody would say we couldn't manage as a country to achieve it. Don't let the naysayers talk our country down.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,149
    edited October 2019

    I would love to see Swinson as LOTO and if she did get that she could make a decent future Prime Minister.

    There is far more sense from her than Corbyn.

    Of course you would

    You are a Tory she is a Tory.

    Both voted for Austerity Neither voted against stopping US taking over the NHS Both are happy with the current system.

    Only one Party represents real change and you will never vote for it.
    Labour has made a catastrophic error in opposing the Withdrawal Agreement, thus enabling the Tories and LDs to fight a December general election for and against Brexit with Labour squeezed in the middle.

    Had the Withdrawal Agreement passed and Brexit been delivered with a Deal Labour could fight the next general election on an anti austerity ticket and make it the main focus of the campaign and maybe even win enough seats for power, as the centre left won the Argentine presidency last night on a platform of opposition to the incumbent resident's austerity measures. (Though Boris shrewdly has moved on from austerity to populism)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,614

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I suspect Nicola will be on the blower to Blackford tonight

    "Do not go near any Labour amendments tomorrow"

    Why would Nicola not want 16- and 17-year-olds to vote? That probably alone would swing their top few target seats to them, even without any "proper" swing from the 2017 results.

    I'd say it's highly likely they will vote yes to a 16/17 amendment, the only question is whether they then pull their support for the main Bill if that amendment is rejected (I think probably not, they'll probably vote for it with or without the amendment, whereas Labour might use it as an excuse to vote against the Bill itself).
    Not going to happen. The one line is going through unamended on the evidence in the HOC just now
    I don't know how you've got that impression. Blackford implied that, while he would still support an election even without a 16/17 year olds amendment, he would still support that amendment. They aren't mutually exclusive, you know; something not being a "priority" or a "red line" doesn't preclude trying to get it if possible.

    Of course, there's no guarantee of a majority for 16/17 year olds, even with SNP support.
    No point as no time to do it

    DUP very annoyed will not support the motion
    I wonder what about ending them being kingmakers the DUP oppose?
    They have blown it. Be karma if they will lose a few seats.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,869
    December 12th would be pretty much the earliest sunset of the entire year.
  • Almost as if it might have been sensible to have cancelled todays debate they are guaranteed to lose and instead pushed forward with the LD/SNP offer as soon as it was offered to have given it an extra day....
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Bercow puts the question.
  • Noo said:

    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Votes for 16/17 year olds is a problem for this election because a 15 yr old NOT on the register who is 16 at the time of the election could sue I think.

    They would have the choice of registering before the closing date, exactly the same as anyone older who isn't currently on the electoral register would have, no?
    There would be an uptick in the number of registrations, but I'd hate to think anybody would say we couldn't manage as a country to achieve it. Don't let the naysayers talk our country down.
    Yes I can’t see any practical issue with anything adding to the roll. The only issue is that you’d miss a few who didn’t realise/bother. I haven’t seen a compelling argument why it couldn’t be done though.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,869
    Enough MPs shouting No there to deny the two thirds majority
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    IanB2 said:

    Enough MPs shouting No there to deny the two thirds majority

    Only official Tory MPs are voting in favour, so that would be about 285 votes.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    Streeter said:

    Chris said:

    Streeter said:

    Chris said:

    Streeter said:

    SNP calling for votes for children and foreignors *rolleyes*

    Foreignors who can’t rite English.
    I thought it was spelled "furriners".
    It’s newspeak.
    It's a typo.

    I don't think there's no apostrophe in "it's" if you wish to be a grammar Nazi.
    I hope you realise that's a double negative ;-)
    Yeah, I already edited out that line immediately but too slow I guess, I don't particularly want to get into a pissing context about grammar 😂
    Obviously a foreignor.
    You got him on the ropes now, Streeter! Don't let up! Hit him with another 20 or 30 comments about a typo. That'll show him and his leaver ilk!
  • One for @Philip_Thompson to relish. The Letterati are going to have a great evening!
    Why did you tag me? I already replied, I said it was a good letter.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,865

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Even by the standards of recent times, which make Alice in Wonderland look like a gritty documentary, this seems surreal. Boris is moving an early dissolution and Labour, at least, is opposing. Tomorrow we will have a bill for an election as well 3 days different. Why the **** does Boris not introduce that bill tonight? What is the point of his motion? Presumably he wants to show how absurdly obstructive Parliament is but anyone who doesn’t know that is simply not paying attention.

    He has lost control. In office but not in power. The only thing BJ likes is power or more precisely the trappings of power. He has crashed his party after only a few weeks by withdrawing the whip to 20 odd MPs...
    Nope. They weren’t going to vote for his policies anyway. He wants an election. Fair enough. FWIW I think that he will win. He should be looking for the shortest line between 2 points, not messing about.
    Its comical how bitter some people are that things are going how Boris wants.
    I love how they can reconcile the views that he is some sort of coward and that he is keen on an election. To me it makes as much sense as saying that psychopathic lunatic that the Americans killed took the cowards way out by, err, blowing himself up with a suicide vest.
  • I would love to see Swinson as LOTO and if she did get that she could make a decent future Prime Minister.

    There is far more sense from her than Corbyn.

    Of course you would

    You are a Tory she is a Tory.

    Both voted for Austerity Neither voted against stopping US taking over the NHS Both are happy with the current system.

    Only one Party represents real change and you will never vote for it.
    Absolutely I will never vote for communists.

    I did vote for Labour under Blair. Regretted it, but I did.
    Which policies in 2017 were Communist?
    Putting self-defined Marxist John McDonnell into 11 Downing Street.

    If Corbyn and McDonnell get into Downing St they'd be under no obligation to stick to their manifesto.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Noo said:

    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Votes for 16/17 year olds is a problem for this election because a 15 yr old NOT on the register who is 16 at the time of the election could sue I think.

    They would have the choice of registering before the closing date, exactly the same as anyone older who isn't currently on the electoral register would have, no?
    There would be an uptick in the number of registrations, but I'd hate to think anybody would say we couldn't manage as a country to achieve it. Don't let the naysayers talk our country down.
    Yes I can’t see any practical issue with anything adding to the roll. The only issue is that you’d miss a few who didn’t realise/bother. I haven’t seen a compelling argument why it couldn’t be done though.
    Well, that's a perennial issue. You either go down the route of mandatory voter registration or you don't lose any sleep over it. If someone doesn't register, they can always just vote in the next election in 6 months time.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,614
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Danny565 said:

    I also don't see why people view votes for 16 and 17 year olds as a "wrecking" amendment, or one that would cause the Tories to pull support for the Bill. I would've thought, even if that amendment passes, they would still support an election; they're too far committed to it now to back down.

    A change to the franchise should at the very least be a manifesto pledge in a party/coalition that gets a majority to implement it.
    It is surely a therwilloftherpeople issue? It is striking how Leaver enthusiasm for referendums fails to generalise beyond referendums held in 2016 and which happened to go their way.
    Ther referendum was voted for by getting a majority of Conservative MPs in ther House of Commons. You are talking bollocks.
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    I wonder if the LD/SNP desire for votes for 16/17s and the Tories request for 12/12 are pre-agreed sacrifices.

    LD/SNP: We got our date.

    Tories: We had 16/17s voting postponed.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541

    kinabalu said:

    Gabs2 said:

    It's like this -

    All politicians make promises in election campaigns. None of them couch them in language of caveats. It is widely accepted those promises are contingent on the degree of political control they win.

    When politicians fail to achieve them, the voters hold it against them when it is their fault and don't hold it against them if it is thwarted by others.

    You say Boris should uniquely be held to a standard where he has to make caveats other politicians never had.

    That, I submit, is anti-Brexit bias. That's a prime case of anti-Brexit bias right there.

    Oh no (!) not the templating thing. And you're wrong. I am being objective. I've pressed my special button.

    It's like THIS -

    Should Boris be politically crucified for breaking his totemic promise? No - he is not entirely without excuses.

    Should Boris avoid any serious political damage for breaking his totemic promise? No way - having excuses does not and should not buy you that in big ticket politics. Not for a pledge as high profile and personal and influential as this one.

    If in doubt ask Nick Clegg.
    Nick Clegg pledged to abolish tuition fees and voted to treble them instead.

    Johnson voted against the extension.

    Do you not see the difference?

    There are none so blind as those who will not see.
    He said he would never agree to send an extension letter. Rather than resign he sent two.
  • Streeter said:

    Streeter said:

    Chris said:

    Streeter said:

    SNP calling for votes for children and foreignors *rolleyes*

    Foreignors who can’t rite English.
    I thought it was spelled "furriners".
    It’s newspeak.
    It's a typo.
    e and o are next to one another on your keyboard? Russian, is it?
    No I touch type and I made a mistake. It doesn't matter if they're next to each other or not.
  • Noo said:

    Noo said:

    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Votes for 16/17 year olds is a problem for this election because a 15 yr old NOT on the register who is 16 at the time of the election could sue I think.

    They would have the choice of registering before the closing date, exactly the same as anyone older who isn't currently on the electoral register would have, no?
    There would be an uptick in the number of registrations, but I'd hate to think anybody would say we couldn't manage as a country to achieve it. Don't let the naysayers talk our country down.
    Yes I can’t see any practical issue with anything adding to the roll. The only issue is that you’d miss a few who didn’t realise/bother. I haven’t seen a compelling argument why it couldn’t be done though.
    Well, that's a perennial issue. You either go down the route of mandatory voter registration or you don't lose any sleep over it. If someone doesn't register, they can always just vote in the next election in 6 months time.
    Heh. Yeah I used to mock the Aussies for going to the polls every five minutes.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited October 2019
    Noo said:

    Noo said:

    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Votes for 16/17 year olds is a problem for this election because a 15 yr old NOT on the register who is 16 at the time of the election could sue I think.

    They would have the choice of registering before the closing date, exactly the same as anyone older who isn't currently on the electoral register would have, no?
    There would be an uptick in the number of registrations, but I'd hate to think anybody would say we couldn't manage as a country to achieve it. Don't let the naysayers talk our country down.
    Yes I can’t see any practical issue with anything adding to the roll. The only issue is that you’d miss a few who didn’t realise/bother. I haven’t seen a compelling argument why it couldn’t be done though.
    Well, that's a perennial issue. You either go down the route of mandatory voter registration or you don't lose any sleep over it. If someone doesn't register, they can always just vote in the next election in 6 months time.
    Yes, the bollocks from PBTories about it being "too logistically difficult" seems to be confusing an entitlement for 16- and 17-year-olds to vote if they want, with a requirement for them to vote (which, as you say, doesn't apply to anyone no matter what their age).
  • Mrs U gives me shorter shopping lists for the weekly shop than jezzas demands for backing a GE.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Votes for 16/17 year olds is a problem for this election because a 15 yr old NOT on the register who is 16 at the time of the election could sue I think.

    They would have the choice of registering before the closing date, exactly the same as anyone older who isn't currently on the electoral register would have, no?
    337,734 16 and 17 year old attainers were on the electoral register in Dec 2016. Most will have been 17.

    The 2016 mid year population estimate was that 757,787 people were aged 17.

    So at least 60% of 17 year olds can be expected to have been left off current electoral registers.

    The curse of IER strikes again.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Even by the standards of recent times, which make Alice in Wonderland look like a gritty documentary, this seems surreal. Boris is moving an early dissolution and Labour, at least, is opposing. Tomorrow we will have a bill for an election as well 3 days different. Why the **** does Boris not introduce that bill tonight? What is the point of his motion? Presumably he wants to show how absurdly obstructive Parliament is but anyone who doesn’t know that is simply not paying attention.

    He has lost control. In office but not in power. The only thing BJ likes is power or more precisely the trappings of power. He has crashed his party after only a few weeks by withdrawing the whip to 20 odd MPs...
    Nope. They weren’t going to vote for his policies anyway. He wants an election. Fair enough. FWIW I think that he will win. He should be looking for the shortest line between 2 points, not messing about.
    Its comical how bitter some people are that things are going how Boris wants.
    I love how they can reconcile the views that he is some sort of coward and that he is keen on an election. To me it makes as much sense as saying that psychopathic lunatic that the Americans killed took the cowards way out by, err, blowing himself up with a suicide vest.
    Cowardice has multiple definitions, one is failing to accept responsibility in life. I cannot think of anyone who wants the trappings of power so much without taking on the responsibilities than Johnson.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,293
    Can't they split the difference and have it on Tuesday 10th December?

  • Danny565 said:

    Noo said:

    Noo said:

    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Votes for 16/17 year olds is a problem for this election because a 15 yr old NOT on the register who is 16 at the time of the election could sue I think.

    They would have the choice of registering before the closing date, exactly the same as anyone older who isn't currently on the electoral register would have, no?
    There would be an uptick in the number of registrations, but I'd hate to think anybody would say we couldn't manage as a country to achieve it. Don't let the naysayers talk our country down.
    Yes I can’t see any practical issue with anything adding to the roll. The only issue is that you’d miss a few who didn’t realise/bother. I haven’t seen a compelling argument why it couldn’t be done though.
    Well, that's a perennial issue. You either go down the route of mandatory voter registration or you don't lose any sleep over it. If someone doesn't register, they can always just vote in the next election in 6 months time.
    Yes, the bollocks from PBTories about it being "too logistically difficult" seems to be confusing an entitlement for 16- and 17-year-olds to vote if they want, with a requirement for them to vote (which, as you say, doesn't apply to anyone no matter what their age).
    The only thing I would say is that, absent the need to agree something for a election this minute, it would clearly be better to have a larger Bill making 16 the default legal age for everything. E.g. Why not Jury Service and what about stuff like credit cards?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    IanB2 said:

    December 12th would be pretty much the earliest sunset of the entire year.

    sunrise 8.07, set 4.13 (in Plymouth) giving 6 hours 54 minutes of benighted voting time. On Thursday Feb 13 rise 7.31, set 5.30, for a loss of 5 hours daylight voting.
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    When a 1 line bill to is submitted and an amendment is attached can the original proposer withdraw their bill prior to a vote?
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Votes for 16/17 year olds is a problem for this election because a 15 yr old NOT on the register who is 16 at the time of the election could sue I think.

    They would have the choice of registering before the closing date, exactly the same as anyone older who isn't currently on the electoral register would have, no?
    337,734 16 and 17 year old attainers were on the electoral register in Dec 2016. Most will have been 17.

    The 2016 mid year population estimate was that 757,787 people were aged 17.

    So at least 60% of 17 year olds can be expected to have been left off current electoral registers.

    The curse of IER strikes again.
    But, on past evidence, the electoral register will only close about 2 weeks before polling day, which gives people about a month to register if they want.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,676
    It's time Labour voted for a General election.
    Trust our activists to get our popular message out.
    We would be fools to dodge an election with votes at 16
  • HYUFD said:
    More silly buggery...SNP jump on the outrage bus, Tories give it a a massive shove causing it to speed off down the hill.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,149

    Danny565 said:

    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I suspect Nicola will be on the blower to Blackford tonight

    "Do not go near any Labour amendments tomorrow"

    Why would Nicola not want 16- and 17-year-olds to vote? That probably alone would swing their top few target seats to them, even without any "proper" swing from the 2017 results.

    I'd say it's highly likely they will vote yes to a 16/17 amendment, the only question is whether they then pull their support for the main Bill if that amendment is rejected (I think probably not, they'll probably vote for it with or without the amendment, whereas Labour might use it as an excuse to vote against the Bill itself).
    Not going to happen. The one line is going through unamended on the evidence in the HOC just now
    I don't know how you've got that impression. Blackford implied that, while he would still support an election even without a 16/17 year olds amendment, he would still support that amendment. They aren't mutually exclusive, you know; something not being a "priority" or a "red line" doesn't preclude trying to get it if possible.

    Of course, there's no guarantee of a majority for 16/17 year olds, even with SNP support.
    No point as no time to do it

    DUP very annoyed will not support the motion
    I wonder what about ending them being kingmakers the DUP oppose?
    They have blown it. Be karma if they will lose a few seats.
    On current polling the Tories will win a UK majority but the DUP may lose a seat or two to the Alliance and thus lose their majority of Northern Ireland seats
  • HYUFD said:
    Its almost like all the nonsense about respecting a mandate doesnt apply when Bluekip dont like the mandate. Then the SNP mandate for representing Scotland can be shouted down and mocked.
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106


    The only thing I would say is that, absent the need to agree something for a election this minute, it would clearly be better to have a larger Bill making 16 the default legal age for everything. E.g. Why not Jury Service and what about stuff like credit cards?

    And 16 year olds becoming adults in the eyes of criminal law.
  • Ishmael_Z said:

    IanB2 said:

    December 12th would be pretty much the earliest sunset of the entire year.

    sunrise 8.07, set 4.13 (in Plymouth) giving 6 hours 54 minutes of benighted voting time. On Thursday Feb 13 rise 7.31, set 5.30, for a loss of 5 hours daylight voting.
    They managed a December election in 1918, when they had no benefit of t'Internet, Mobiles or Twitter!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,614
    Good Lady Wifi on set in LA. On alert to evacuate - fires very close. Eek!
  • 299 - 70
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268
    Any major change to the voting system or electorate should be done by a manifesto pledge and referendum, and then delayed for at least five years, to discourage rigging of the next election.

    This equally applies to adding school students or removing Commonwealth voters.
  • The result of this vote more of a full gone conclusion than david warner getting out to stuart broad jn the first few overs during the ashes.
  • Good Lady Wifi on set in LA. On alert to evacuate - fires very close. Eek!

    Hope she stays safe!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,869
    Bozo taking the LibDem strategy but sticking with the 12th.

    SNP saying they don’t trust Bozo and they need cast iron assurance about not pushing the WAIB meanwhile.
  • Get Ready for... Flextension!!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,149

    HYUFD said:
    Its almost like all the nonsense about respecting a mandate doesnt apply when Bluekip dont like the mandate. Then the SNP mandate for representing Scotland can be shouted down and mocked.
    Leave won their referendum, Yes lost theirs
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,149

    It's time Labour voted for a General election.
    Trust our activists to get our popular message out.
    We would be fools to dodge an election with votes at 16

    Barely 1% of voters would be 16 to 18 even if that was the case while the Tories can fight a pro Brexit election
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,293
    IanB2 said:

    Bozo taking the LibDem strategy but sticking with the 12th.

    SNP saying they don’t trust Bozo and they need cast iron assurance about not pushing the WAIB meanwhile.

    I was quite looking forward to voting on a Monday! :(
  • Looks like Corbyn is going to accept tomorrow. Maybe or maybe not !!!
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751

    HYUFD said:
    More silly buggery...SNP jump on the outrage bus, Tories give it a a massive shove causing it to speed off down the hill.
    James Cleverly vying with Andrew Adonis yet again, in the competition for the parliamentarian with the least appropriate name.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,696

    Ishmael_Z said:

    IanB2 said:

    December 12th would be pretty much the earliest sunset of the entire year.

    sunrise 8.07, set 4.13 (in Plymouth) giving 6 hours 54 minutes of benighted voting time. On Thursday Feb 13 rise 7.31, set 5.30, for a loss of 5 hours daylight voting.
    They managed a December election in 1918, when they had no benefit of t'Internet, Mobiles or Twitter!
    Only 10.4m votes cast though!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,772
    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1188894312718913536

    Seriously? He expects that to happen? Has he not be listening to the nonsense for the last two years?
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Its almost like all the nonsense about respecting a mandate doesnt apply when Bluekip dont like the mandate. Then the SNP mandate for representing Scotland can be shouted down and mocked.
    Leave won their referendum, Yes lost theirs
    They are MPs who have won a mandate. What is wrong with showing them respect. It is basic human decency, unless the intent is to sow further division on the country.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    An aspect about votes at 16 that rarely gets mentioned is the fact that many 16 years will not get the chance to vote. A lot depends on when you were born. Back in the old days, we used to have elections every 4 or 5 years rather than 2 years. Indeed, some unlucky people get to the age of 23 before they're eligible to vote in a general election. With votes at 16, only a handful of people would reach their 21st birthday without having had the chance to vote in a GE.
  • Danny565 said:

    Noo said:

    Noo said:

    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Votes for 16/17 year olds is a problem for this election because a 15 yr old NOT on the register who is 16 at the time of the election could sue I think.

    They would have the choice of registering before the closing date, exactly the same as anyone older who isn't currently on the electoral register would have, no?
    There would be an uptick in the number of registrations, but I'd hate to think anybody would say we couldn't manage as a country to achieve it. Don't let the naysayers talk our country down.
    Yes I can’t see any practical issue with anything adding to the roll. The only issue is that you’d miss a few who didn’t realise/bother. I haven’t seen a compelling argument why it couldn’t be done though.
    Well, that's a perennial issue. You either go down the route of mandatory voter registration or you don't lose any sleep over it. If someone doesn't register, they can always just vote in the next election in 6 months time.
    Yes, the bollocks from PBTories about it being "too logistically difficult" seems to be confusing an entitlement for 16- and 17-year-olds to vote if they want, with a requirement for them to vote (which, as you say, doesn't apply to anyone no matter what their age).
    The only thing I would say is that, absent the need to agree something for a election this minute, it would clearly be better to have a larger Bill making 16 the default legal age for everything. E.g. Why not Jury Service and what about stuff like credit cards?
    Alcohol? Tobacco?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,293
    edited October 2019

    It's time Labour voted for a General election.
    Trust our activists to get our popular message out.
    We would be fools to dodge an election with votes at 16

    Even if Parliament agrees to it in an amendment the Electoral Commission have said it will take at least six months to sort out - so it will be a meaningless gesture.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,772
    Have we just seen the beginning of the end of the FTPA?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,293

    Have we just seen the beginning of the end of the FTPA?

    Hopefully...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,772

    This Thread now faces a General Election

  • Danny565 said:

    Noo said:

    Noo said:

    Danny565 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Votes for 16/17 year olds is a problem for this election because a 15 yr old NOT on the register who is 16 at the time of the election could sue I think.

    They would have the choice of registering before the closing date, exactly the same as anyone older who isn't currently on the electoral register would have, no?
    There would be an uptick in the number of registrations, but I'd hate to think anybody would say we couldn't manage as a country to achieve it. Don't let the naysayers talk our country down.
    Yes I can’t see any practical issue with anything adding to the roll. The only issue is that you’d miss a few who didn’t realise/bother. I haven’t seen a compelling argument why it couldn’t be done though.
    Well, that's a perennial issue. You either go down the route of mandatory voter registration or you don't lose any sleep over it. If someone doesn't register, they can always just vote in the next election in 6 months time.
    Yes, the bollocks from PBTories about it being "too logistically difficult" seems to be confusing an entitlement for 16- and 17-year-olds to vote if they want, with a requirement for them to vote (which, as you say, doesn't apply to anyone no matter what their age).
    The only thing I would say is that, absent the need to agree something for a election this minute, it would clearly be better to have a larger Bill making 16 the default legal age for everything. E.g. Why not Jury Service and what about stuff like credit cards?
    Alcohol? Tobacco?
    I think it’s the right debate. When are you an adult and why? Certainly I was already a drinker at sixteen and though I’ve never smoked, I’m guessing if I had I’d have started in my teens.
  • Noo said:

    An aspect about votes at 16 that rarely gets mentioned is the fact that many 16 years will not get the chance to vote. A lot depends on when you were born. Back in the old days, we used to have elections every 4 or 5 years rather than 2 years. Indeed, some unlucky people get to the age of 23 before they're eligible to vote in a general election. With votes at 16, only a handful of people would reach their 21st birthday without having had the chance to vote in a GE.

    Interesting.

    Can I suggest we have a truce and move on ???
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,751

    Looks like Corbyn is going to accept tomorrow. Maybe or maybe not !!!

    Too dark and students might not be able to vote.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Noo said:

    An aspect about votes at 16 that rarely gets mentioned is the fact that many 16 years will not get the chance to vote. A lot depends on when you were born. Back in the old days, we used to have elections every 4 or 5 years rather than 2 years. Indeed, some unlucky people get to the age of 23 before they're eligible to vote in a general election. With votes at 16, only a handful of people would reach their 21st birthday without having had the chance to vote in a GE.

    Interesting.

    Can I suggest we have a truce and move on ???
    Nope.
  • Noo said:

    Noo said:

    An aspect about votes at 16 that rarely gets mentioned is the fact that many 16 years will not get the chance to vote. A lot depends on when you were born. Back in the old days, we used to have elections every 4 or 5 years rather than 2 years. Indeed, some unlucky people get to the age of 23 before they're eligible to vote in a general election. With votes at 16, only a handful of people would reach their 21st birthday without having had the chance to vote in a GE.

    Interesting.

    Can I suggest we have a truce and move on ???
    Nope.
    I think that is a shame but there you are
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,696
    HYUFD said:

    It's time Labour voted for a General election.
    Trust our activists to get our popular message out.
    We would be fools to dodge an election with votes at 16

    Barely 1% of voters would be 16 to 18 even if that was the case while the Tories can fight a pro Brexit election
    Must be closer to 2% surely?
  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,469
    They managed it with the Benn Act
  • eekeek Posts: 28,405
    SunnyJim said:


    The only thing I would say is that, absent the need to agree something for a election this minute, it would clearly be better to have a larger Bill making 16 the default legal age for everything. E.g. Why not Jury Service and what about stuff like credit cards?

    And 16 year olds becoming adults in the eyes of criminal law.
    One reason why they shouldn’t have jury service is they are in education which is from memory an acceptable excuse.

    As for registration 16-17 year olds that won’t be an issue as schools and 6th form colleges can organize it very quickly if need be - hand out forms at the beginning of registration and collect at the end to forward to the polling officer
  • HYUFD said:

    It's time Labour voted for a General election.
    Trust our activists to get our popular message out.
    We would be fools to dodge an election with votes at 16

    Barely 1% of voters would be 16 to 18 even if that was the case while the Tories can fight a pro Brexit election
    Must be closer to 2% surely?
    Hi Ben

    I am not sure if you saw my post early today when I accepted that Parliament does have the mandate to put forward the questions on a referendum and that the electoral commission cannot add in no deal etc but does adjudicate on wordings

    I was wrong and have held my hands up

    Mind you, I still maintain no deal must be on the ballot and even though I do not support it
This discussion has been closed.