Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The General Election – identifying the top bell weather seats

124678

Comments

  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    kinabalu said:

    Just out of interest has anyone else noticed the lense in the glasses of JC's right hand eye or if you are watching on tv the lense on the left. It is radically different to the other lense. Hope he is ok!

    Jeremy has eye problems, Boris has lie problems.
    Osborn has cry problems, Nigel Lawson has dye problems. Not one of them has a shy problem.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    Will Johnson cancel the election unless young people are barred from voting?

    Rank cowardice if so but I wouldn't put it past him.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,774
    Nigelb said:
    Question is whether Labour swallows the rulings or uses them as excuse for voting against.
  • PaulM said:

    Looking at the votes on Creasy amendment

    Ex Tories voting for it were Bebb, Clarke, Greening, Grieve, P Hammond, Sandbach

    Boles, Burt, Gauke, Letwin, Rudd and Rory Stewart abstained


    Does anyone really believe the likes of Clarke, Hammond etc in their claims that the WAB could ever have passed if reliant on their votes?
    Yes.
  • PaulM said:

    Looking at the votes on Creasy amendment

    Ex Tories voting for it were Bebb, Clarke, Greening, Grieve, P Hammond, Sandbach

    Boles, Burt, Gauke, Letwin, Rudd and Rory Stewart abstained


    Does anyone really believe the likes of Clarke, Hammond etc in their claims that the WAB could ever have passed if reliant on their votes?
    Yes, it's certainly possible that it would:

    https://ukandeu.ac.uk/could-boris-johnson-have-passed-his-brexit-bill/

    I'm not entirely convinced, personally.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,359

    PaulM said:

    Looking at the votes on Creasy amendment

    Ex Tories voting for it were Bebb, Clarke, Greening, Grieve, P Hammond, Sandbach

    Boles, Burt, Gauke, Letwin, Rudd and Rory Stewart abstained


    Does anyone really believe the likes of Clarke, Hammond etc in their claims that the WAB could ever have passed if reliant on their votes?
    Nobody does. A lie that does them no favours.
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    Danny565 said:


    You don't really think the government would cancel the election just because 16 and 17-year-olds get to vote, do you?

    I would hope that they would, yes.



  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,736

    Corbo going for Vas and Veuc - good for him. I raised this idea last night. Great idea!

    Changing the system for short term gain is indeed typical of Corbyn.

    But the fact remains that both votes at 16 and votes for EU citizens are a moral and consitutional abomination.
    I must say I thought the LDs were very much committed to votes at 16.

    I nearly said "as a matter of principle" then.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?

    Many people would rather raise the voting age to 21 than drop it to 16.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,753

    Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?

    It's rushed.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,477
    DavidL said:

    The idea that EU citizens should be given the right to vote in our national election for the first time when Parliament has already approved in principle a deal to allow us to leave the EU is just so off the wall that it must surely be getting put forward as a bet.

    It’s not off the wall at all. They have been given the right to remain. It’s an important gesture welcoming them into the franchise post Brexit.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,774
    AndyJS said:

    Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?

    Many people would rather raise the voting age to 21 than drop it to 16.
    The way things are going, the Tories will need to raise the voting age to retirement age
  • Has anyone any idea when the amendments will be called
  • AndyJS said:

    Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?

    Many people would rather raise the voting age to 21 than drop it to 16.
    And on the other point, other than party advantage why stop with EU national? If you believe in the principle it should include all foreign nationals.

    They are both sensible policy debates to be had (what is an adult; and is voting about where you come from and loyalty, or where you are), but there is a debate.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,359
    timmo said:
    How long has Dominic Grieve been a convert to the cause of a much widened franchise? Fifteen minutes? The full hour?
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006
    Brom said:

    Chris said:

    Brom said:

    RobD said:

    The absence of Swinson was interesting. Are enough washing their hair to let the Gvt win?

    Edit - nope. Here we got with the votes at 16 and EU amendments.

    Both of those are wrecking amendments as that isn’t feasible before the date listed in the bill.
    Why aren't they feasible?

    EU electors are already on the electoral register and, while 16-17 year olds would need to hurry up to register, there's no reason the election couldn't go ahead despite many not having done so.

    They may not be desirable for Johnson... and may be enough for him to vote against his own election plan. But they are certainly feasible in practical terms.
    No chance, they know the public is against letting kids vote and they know there would be on election if they insist upon it.
    Why stop at citizens of Bulgaria? Why not citizens of Russia or China?
    Let's face it, they should never have let coloureds vote.
    I can imagine yourself driving a minibus full of toddlers to a polling station in order to help the remain cause. Any gerrymandering will do.
    I seriously doubt that remainers would need to gerrymander anything to win a 2nd referendum - I'm happy to put it to the test, are you?
  • PierrotPierrot Posts: 112
    Brom said:

    Brom said:

    The Tories should accept the amendments. Let’s do it! Vas and Veuc, all-in, an election for every citizen!

    Lol, crazy talk. Literally no one wants that.
    Incorrect. I do for one. I reckon there are thousands more with me.

    I think you meant “I don’t want that”.
    Thousands says it all! So you think a Romanian living in the UK for a few years should get to vote both in both a UK General election and a Romanian election? Essentially any foreigner living in the UK wouldn't need to take up citizenship and could have a say in how 2 countries were run.
    Not "any foreigner". Citizens of 24 EU member states would be added to citizens of Cyprus, Malta, the Republic of Ireland, India, Pakistan, Australia, etc., who already can vote in all elections here.

  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,469
    All the govt has to do is offer a royal commission to look into votes at 16 and explain that only two other EU countries allow non nationals to vote in their national.elections.
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 483
    Votes for 16/17 year olds won't make much difference, exceptions like Greta Thunberg aside, most of them no little or nothing about politics and will vote along with their parents. Most people of that age group that I know are more concerned with who's winning Love Island than who's in No.10.
    Who would appeal to this age group more on social media? Boris with his jovial nature and mop of blond hair or earnest old man Corbyn with his grey beard?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,359
    IanB2 said:

    AndyJS said:

    Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?

    Many people would rather raise the voting age to 21 than drop it to 16.
    The way things are going, the Tories will need to raise the voting age to retirement age
    Boris: "I wish to table an amendment......"
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    TOPPING said:

    Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?

    It's rushed.
    Anyone will tell you that Vaz is extremely oleaginous and not a man to trust given his record...
    As for Veuc….??
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    OllyT said:

    Brom said:

    Chris said:

    Brom said:

    RobD said:

    The absence of Swinson was interesting. Are enough washing their hair to let the Gvt win?

    Edit - nope. Here we got with the votes at 16 and EU amendments.

    Both of those are wrecking amendments as that isn’t feasible before the date listed in the bill.
    Why aren't they feasible?

    EU electors are already on the electoral register and, while 16-17 year olds would need to hurry up to register, there's no reason the election couldn't go ahead despite many not having done so.

    They may not be desirable for Johnson... and may be enough for him to vote against his own election plan. But they are certainly feasible in practical terms.
    No chance, they know the public is against letting kids vote and they know there would be on election if they insist upon it.
    Why stop at citizens of Bulgaria? Why not citizens of Russia or China?
    Let's face it, they should never have let coloureds vote.
    I can imagine yourself driving a minibus full of toddlers to a polling station in order to help the remain cause. Any gerrymandering will do.
    I seriously doubt that remainers would need to gerrymander anything to win a 2nd referendum - I'm happy to put it to the test, are you?
    Sure, but you'll only get one after you fight the general election. Why are you so scared of that?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,477
    It’s stupid that we can send a boy to his death in the military at 16 yet not let him vote.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,774

    timmo said:
    How long has Dominic Grieve been a convert to the cause of a much widened franchise? Fifteen minutes? The full hour?
    Praise to the newly found intellectual open-mindedness once our representatives are freed from the Conservative yoke.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,828

    Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?

    If people are fully mature at 16, why is education/training mandatory until 18? As for the latter, it isn't reciprocated, and it is a blatant gerrymander given the circumstances.
  • PierrotPierrot Posts: 112
    edited October 2019
    DeClare said:

    Votes for 16/17 year olds won't make much difference, exceptions like Greta Thunberg aside, most of them no little or nothing about politics and will vote along with their parents. Most people of that age group that I know are more concerned with who's winning Love Island than who's in No.10.
    Who would appeal to this age group more on social media? Boris with his jovial nature and mop of blond hair or earnest old man Corbyn with his grey beard?

    What else happens in December?
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    Is 9th Dec even possible now? Thought we'd run out of time for that.
    Nigelb said:
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,706

    DavidL said:

    The idea that EU citizens should be given the right to vote in our national election for the first time when Parliament has already approved in principle a deal to allow us to leave the EU is just so off the wall that it must surely be getting put forward as a bet.

    It’s not off the wall at all. They have been given the right to remain. It’s an important gesture welcoming them into the franchise post Brexit.
    I cannot believe you are being serious. There is a world of difference between having a right to remain somewhere and a right to vote in a national election. Even the EU has never gone that far.
  • timmo said:
    Were they asked? Various daft Labour stunts in recent days about "eugh LibDems didn't vote for this" when the opposite is quickly demonstrated
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,828

    It’s stupid that we can send a boy to his death in the military at 16 yet not let him vote.

    I thought 16 year olds couldn't go to the front line?
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    AndyJS said:

    Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?

    Many people would rather raise the voting age to 21 than drop it to 16.
    Many people think it should be restricted to people just like them.

    FWIW, I think 16 is too young, but I do understand the arguments for it.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    edited October 2019

    It’s stupid that we can send a boy to his death in the military at 16 yet not let him vote.

    We can’t. You can’t go to a war zone until you’re 18. That’s because we endorse the UN’s views on child soldiers.....
  • Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?

    I am not a PB Tory but the objections to both are simple.

    On Votes for EU citizens. People should not have the vote on the future of our country if they have no long term interest in its success. If their intent is to remain in Britain permanently then they should become British citizens and gain the vote that way. If they are not willing to do that then they should not be voting on our future. I would also remove the franchise fron anyone living outside the UK for more than 5 years. It can be restored if and when thry resettle.

    On votes at 16. An election is akin to a contract. I would consider changing to 16 if we also changed every other law surrounding age of consent including jury service and the right to enter into contracts. And drinking, smoking and driving. Funnily enough although this may not include you, lots of people in favour of votes at 16 balk at the idea of having a 16 year old drive a car or sit in judgement on them on a jury.
  • SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    RobD said:

    It’s stupid that we can send a boy to his death in the military at 16 yet not let him vote.

    I thought 16 year olds couldn't go to the front line?
    They can't.

    They can't even be live armed on guard in the UK (or at least couldn't).
  • blueblueblueblue Posts: 875
    edited October 2019

    Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?

    Because it's blatant vote-rigging by the left, who are too shit to win elections without changing the franchise.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,774
    DeClare said:

    Votes for 16/17 year olds won't make much difference, exceptions like Greta Thunberg aside, most of them no little or nothing about politics and will vote along with their parents. Most people of that age group that I know are more concerned with who's winning Love Island than who's in No.10.
    Who would appeal to this age group more on social media? Boris with his jovial nature and mop of blond hair or earnest old man Corbyn with his grey beard?

    Actually - having spent many years as a councillor visiting sixth formers in schools - you are wrong. 16 and 17 year olds are, generalising, very engaged. Disengagement sets in once they leave school and it’s the twentysomethings who are closer to what you describe.
  • PaulMPaulM Posts: 613

    It’s stupid that we can send a boy to his death in the military at 16 yet not let him vote.

    I thought you had to be 18 to serve in a combat role
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    AndyJS said:

    Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?

    Many people would rather raise the voting age to 21 than drop it to 16.
    And some to the age that has over 50% Tory support around 55
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    Laura Kuenssberg has just said that in no EU country can citizens of other EU countries vote. And those are countries that ostensibly to stay in the European Union.

    Whatever the result of this vote, it is going to provoke a great deal of discussion.
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 483

    It’s stupid that we can send a boy to his death in the military at 16 yet not let him vote.

    Not true, under 18 year olds are not allowed in combat situations.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760

    It’s stupid that we can send a boy to his death in the military at 16 yet not let him vote.

    You can't do that. Only 18 year olds are allowed in conflicts.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,736

    PaulM said:

    Looking at the votes on Creasy amendment

    Ex Tories voting for it were Bebb, Clarke, Greening, Grieve, P Hammond, Sandbach

    Boles, Burt, Gauke, Letwin, Rudd and Rory Stewart abstained


    Does anyone really believe the likes of Clarke, Hammond etc in their claims that the WAB could ever have passed if reliant on their votes?
    Nobody does. A lie that does them no favours.
    But the thing is, if you think the WAIB couldn't get through the present House of Commons, you're kind of implying that the LDs are putting their own short-term political interests above their declared Number One Political Principle by facilitating an early election ...
  • It’s stupid that we can send a boy to his death in the military at 16 yet not let him vote.

    It is also a lie. It is against the law for anyone under the age of 18 to be posted to a war zone.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,753

    It’s stupid that we can send a boy to his death in the military at 16 yet not let him vote.

    We can't.
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268
    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:
    Question is whether Labour swallows the rulings or uses them as excuse for voting against.
    Question is whether Bercow perverts the rulings to get his policy preferences.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    It’s stupid that we can send a boy to his death in the military at 16 yet not let him vote.

    People can't even buy cigarettes until the age of 18 now.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,753
    Pierrot said:

    DeClare said:

    Votes for 16/17 year olds won't make much difference, exceptions like Greta Thunberg aside, most of them no little or nothing about politics and will vote along with their parents. Most people of that age group that I know are more concerned with who's winning Love Island than who's in No.10.
    Who would appeal to this age group more on social media? Boris with his jovial nature and mop of blond hair or earnest old man Corbyn with his grey beard?

    What else happens in December?
    Strictly final?
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited October 2019
    SunnyJim said:

    RobD said:

    It’s stupid that we can send a boy to his death in the military at 16 yet not let him vote.

    I thought 16 year olds couldn't go to the front line?
    They can't.

    They can't even be live armed on guard in the UK (or at least couldn't).
    This UN site suggests that our 16 and 17 year olds in the forces are classed as 'child soldiers'.

    https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/six-grave-violations/child-soldiers/

    Definition of a child soldier
    A child associated with an armed force or armed group refers to any person below 18 years of age who is, or who has been, recruited or used by an armed force or armed group in any capacity, including but not limited to children, boys and girls, used as fighters, cooks, porters, spies or for sexual purposes.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited October 2019

    Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?

    I'm no longer a PB Tory, but yes of course:

    VEUC: What the hell has choosing the government of the UK got to do with foreigners?

    VAS: The international definition of a child is under 18. We don't allow children to sign contracts, sue or be sued, open a bank account, get married without parental consent, buy alcohol or cigarettes, buy fireworks, watch certain films, own land, or get a mortgage. All of these restrictions have in common that children are not considered able to form their own mature judgements. It therefore follows that they are not mature enough to vote.

    See? Simple, wasn't it? If you are going to disagree, you really have to disagree with all of the above restrictions, because they go together.
  • Gabs2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:
    Question is whether Labour swallows the rulings or uses them as excuse for voting against.
    Question is whether Bercow perverts the rulings to get his policy preferences.
    It is not Bercow, it is Lindsay Hoyle's decision
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268
    Brom said:

    It’s stupid that we can send a boy to his death in the military at 16 yet not let him vote.

    You can't do that. Only 18 year olds are allowed in conflicts.
    Something the UK had to change to comply with international law on under 18s being children, and therefore child soldiers.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:
    Question is whether Labour swallows the rulings or uses them as excuse for voting against.
    I get the impression that the SNP and Lib Dems are prepared for an election with or without these amendments. Meanwhile the two largest parties bicker.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,753
    Anorak said:

    SunnyJim said:

    RobD said:

    It’s stupid that we can send a boy to his death in the military at 16 yet not let him vote.

    I thought 16 year olds couldn't go to the front line?
    They can't.

    They can't even be live armed on guard in the UK (or at least couldn't).
    This UN site suggests that our 16 and 17 year olds in the forces are classed as 'child soldiers'.

    https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/six-grave-violations/child-soldiers/

    Definition of a child soldier
    A child associated with an armed force or armed group refers to any person below 18 years of age who is, or who has been, recruited or used by an armed force or armed group in any capacity, including but not limited to children, boys and girls, used as fighters, cooks, porters, spies or for sexual purposes.
    It has long been the UN definition/age. As brought into stark relief for example in Rwanda. Romeo Dallaire's books on this are required reading.
  • Pierrot said:

    Brom said:

    Brom said:

    The Tories should accept the amendments. Let’s do it! Vas and Veuc, all-in, an election for every citizen!

    Lol, crazy talk. Literally no one wants that.
    Incorrect. I do for one. I reckon there are thousands more with me.

    I think you meant “I don’t want that”.
    Thousands says it all! So you think a Romanian living in the UK for a few years should get to vote both in both a UK General election and a Romanian election? Essentially any foreigner living in the UK wouldn't need to take up citizenship and could have a say in how 2 countries were run.
    Not "any foreigner". Citizens of 24 EU member states would be added to citizens of Cyprus, Malta, the Republic of Ireland, India, Pakistan, Australia, etc., who already can vote in all elections here.

    And should not be allowed to.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,541
    Anorak said:

    AndyJS said:

    Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?

    Many people would rather raise the voting age to 21 than drop it to 16.
    Many people think it should be restricted to people just like them.

    FWIW, I think 16 is too young, but I do understand the arguments for it.
    Saying that 16 and 17-year-olds shouldn’t be allowed to vote because some are immature and not politically engaged is the same as saying that over 80s shouldn’t be allowed to vote because some have dementia.
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268

    Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?

    I'm no longer a PB Tory, but yes of course:

    VEUC: What the hell has choosing the government of the UK got to do with foreigners?

    VAS: The international definition of a child is under 18. We don't allow children to sign contracts, sue or be sued, open a bank account, get married without parental consent, buy alcohol or cigarettes, buy fireworks, watch certain films, own land, or get a mortgage. All of these restrictions have in common that children are not considered able to form their own mature judgements. It therefore follows that they are not mature enough to vote.

    See? Simple, wasn't it? If you are going to disagree, you really have to disagree with all of the above restrictions, because they go together.
    We should standardise on either 16 or 18 for adulthood. Whichever it is, it should be done with full consultation and consideration, with at least a five year delay if it affects voting.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    IanB2 said:

    DeClare said:

    Votes for 16/17 year olds won't make much difference, exceptions like Greta Thunberg aside, most of them no little or nothing about politics and will vote along with their parents. Most people of that age group that I know are more concerned with who's winning Love Island than who's in No.10.
    Who would appeal to this age group more on social media? Boris with his jovial nature and mop of blond hair or earnest old man Corbyn with his grey beard?

    Actually - having spent many years as a councillor visiting sixth formers in schools - you are wrong. 16 and 17 year olds are, generalising, very engaged. Disengagement sets in once they leave school and it’s the twentysomethings who are closer to what you describe.
    That accords with my experience, too.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 8,163

    The absence of Swinson was interesting. Are enough washing their hair to let the Gvt win?

    Edit - nope. Here we got with the votes at 16 and EU amendments.

    Ms Swinson is off at the hairdressers. @Richard_Nabavi insisted yesterday, that she should get a hairstyle he approves of.

    Now I understand, it was a cunning ruse to derail Parliament by making her miss crucial votes...

    :D:D
    I do wish some on here would grow up.
    Some people on here need to lighten up.

    The whole political situation has reached the stage of farcical comedy and it was you who brought up the subject of her washing her hair.

    Pot. Kettle.
    When have I ever mentioned her washing her hair?

    Edit - Sorry that was me just now! Hadn’t even noticed it as it’s just everyday language.
    It happens to all of us sooner or later. :)
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,060

    Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?

    I am not a PB Tory but the objections to both are simple.

    On Votes for EU citizens. People should not have the vote on the future of our country if they have no long term interest in its success. If their intent is to remain in Britain permanently then they should become British citizens and gain the vote that way. If they are not willing to do that then they should not be voting on our future. I would also remove the franchise fron anyone living outside the UK for more than 5 years. It can be restored if and when thry resettle.

    On votes at 16. An election is akin to a contract. I would consider changing to 16 if we also changed every other law surrounding age of consent including jury service and the right to enter into contracts. And drinking, smoking and driving. Funnily enough although this may not include you, lots of people in favour of votes at 16 balk at the idea of having a 16 year old drive a car or sit in judgement on them on a jury.
    But these are not all allowed at the same age now. Smoking is allowed from 16 and driving is 17. 16 year olds do not have full legal rights but they are cretainly allowed to sign a contract.

    And finally voting is not a contract.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,736

    Pierrot said:

    Brom said:

    Brom said:

    The Tories should accept the amendments. Let’s do it! Vas and Veuc, all-in, an election for every citizen!

    Lol, crazy talk. Literally no one wants that.
    Incorrect. I do for one. I reckon there are thousands more with me.

    I think you meant “I don’t want that”.
    Thousands says it all! So you think a Romanian living in the UK for a few years should get to vote both in both a UK General election and a Romanian election? Essentially any foreigner living in the UK wouldn't need to take up citizenship and could have a say in how 2 countries were run.
    Not "any foreigner". Citizens of 24 EU member states would be added to citizens of Cyprus, Malta, the Republic of Ireland, India, Pakistan, Australia, etc., who already can vote in all elections here.

    And should not be allowed to.
    Careful. Remember Enoch Powell considered ethnic Indians to be more intelligent than White Europeans.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,359
    Pierrot said:

    VEUC would lose the Tories the election. Will VAS and VEUC really go through, wham, committee stage treated as a formality? What a coup!

    This is Labour we are talking about. They might THINK it would be a whizzo wheeze to hurt the Tories. But in reality, their game playing with the electorate will likely prove a net negative. It is just the sort of issue that will swing Brexit voters to the Tories. You know, the Brexit Party currently at around 12% in the polls....
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,477
    DeClare said:

    It’s stupid that we can send a boy to his death in the military at 16 yet not let him vote.

    Not true, under 18 year olds are not allowed in combat situations.
    Apologies. It used to be the case, clearly I am out of date. Still, I remain a supporter of Vas as a means of engaging youngsters in civic life.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,828
    Gabs2 said:

    Brom said:

    It’s stupid that we can send a boy to his death in the military at 16 yet not let him vote.

    You can't do that. Only 18 year olds are allowed in conflicts.
    Something the UK had to change to comply with international law on under 18s being children, and therefore child soldiers.
    Gone are the days where we can send waves and waves of 16 year olds over the top. Sad times.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006
    edited October 2019
    Brom said:

    OllyT said:

    Brom said:

    Chris said:

    Brom said:

    RobD said:

    The absence of Swinson was interesting. Are enough washing their hair to let the Gvt win?

    Edit - nope. Here we got with the votes at 16 and EU amendments.

    Both of those are wrecking amendments as that isn’t feasible before the date listed in the bill.
    Why aren't they feasible?

    EU electors are already on the electoral register and, while 16-17 year olds would need to hurry up to register, there's no reason the election couldn't go ahead despite many not having done so.

    They may not be desirable for Johnson... and may be enough for him to vote against his own election plan. But they are certainly feasible in practical terms.
    No chance, they know the public is against letting kids vote and they know there would be on election if they insist upon it.
    Why stop at citizens of Bulgaria? Why not citizens of Russia or China?
    Let's face it, they should never have let coloureds vote.
    I can imagine yourself driving a minibus full of toddlers to a polling station in order to help the remain cause. Any gerrymandering will do.
    I seriously doubt that remainers would need to gerrymander anything to win a 2nd referendum - I'm happy to put it to the test, are you?
    Sure, but you'll only get one after you fight the general election. Why are you so scared of that?
    Because a GE won't resolve the problem whereas a referendum will.

    The people who oppose a referendum but want a GE are those "democrats" who want to bulldoze their way through on 35% of the vote because they know they can't win 50% in a referendum anymore (and never would have if they had been required to spell out what Brexit actually meant before we voted).

    The last time we had a GE supposedly to resolve the Brexit issue by giving a mandate to May's plan. When she lost her majority we were then told it had nothing to do with Brexit. Leavers would pull exactly the same stunt this time if Bozo fails like May did
  • Gabs2 said:

    Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?

    I'm no longer a PB Tory, but yes of course:

    VEUC: What the hell has choosing the government of the UK got to do with foreigners?

    VAS: The international definition of a child is under 18. We don't allow children to sign contracts, sue or be sued, open a bank account, get married without parental consent, buy alcohol or cigarettes, buy fireworks, watch certain films, own land, or get a mortgage. All of these restrictions have in common that children are not considered able to form their own mature judgements. It therefore follows that they are not mature enough to vote.

    See? Simple, wasn't it? If you are going to disagree, you really have to disagree with all of the above restrictions, because they go together.
    We should standardise on either 16 or 18 for adulthood. Whichever it is, it should be done with full consultation and consideration, with at least a five year delay if it affects voting.
    Not sure of the delay but one Bill affecting all adult rights seems sensible. Hard to argue against.

    And in EU nationals, again why just the EU? Wouldn’t be for Labour electoral advantage would it? Scared of the settled, right wing US or Aussie views.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    Gabs2 said:

    Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?

    I'm no longer a PB Tory, but yes of course:

    VEUC: What the hell has choosing the government of the UK got to do with foreigners?

    VAS: The international definition of a child is under 18. We don't allow children to sign contracts, sue or be sued, open a bank account, get married without parental consent, buy alcohol or cigarettes, buy fireworks, watch certain films, own land, or get a mortgage. All of these restrictions have in common that children are not considered able to form their own mature judgements. It therefore follows that they are not mature enough to vote.

    See? Simple, wasn't it? If you are going to disagree, you really have to disagree with all of the above restrictions, because they go together.
    We should standardise on either 16 or 18 for adulthood. Whichever it is, it should be done with full consultation and consideration, with at least a five year delay if it affects voting.
    Why 'at least five years' ?

    I entirely understand the point about an election to be held in about a month's time, but that seems arbitrarily silly.
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268
    DougSeal said:

    Anorak said:

    AndyJS said:

    Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?

    Many people would rather raise the voting age to 21 than drop it to 16.
    Many people think it should be restricted to people just like them.

    FWIW, I think 16 is too young, but I do understand the arguments for it.
    Saying that 16 and 17-year-olds shouldn’t be allowed to vote because some are immature and not politically engaged is the same as saying that over 80s shouldn’t be allowed to vote because some have dementia.
    Doesn't that also apply to 15 year olds or 13 year olds? There will always be some mature and some immature. The question is when the maturity step change happens. 18 seems to be the best one to me, as that is when most start working full time or living alone at university.
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,843
    DeClare said:

    Votes for 16/17 year olds won't make much difference, exceptions like Greta Thunberg aside, most of them no little or nothing about politics and will vote along with their parents. Most people of that age group that I know are more concerned with who's winning Love Island than who's in No.10.
    Who would appeal to this age group more on social media? Boris with his jovial nature and mop of blond hair or earnest old man Corbyn with his grey beard?

    Most people in the country at large are more concerned with love Island than who is in number 10. Whether 16 years know enough about politics is irrelevant to the question unless we are planning a test for all citizens before they can vote to make sure everyone knows their Erskine May from their Theresa May.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,736

    Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?

    I'm no longer a PB Tory, but yes of course:

    VEUC: What the hell has choosing the government of the UK got to do with foreigners?

    VAS: The international definition of a child is under 18. We don't allow children to sign contracts, sue or be sued, open a bank account, get married without parental consent, buy alcohol or cigarettes, buy fireworks, watch certain films, own land, or get a mortgage. All of these restrictions have in common that children are not considered able to form their own mature judgements. It therefore follows that they are not mature enough to vote.

    See? Simple, wasn't it?
    Very simple. You're in favour of sex with children being legal.
  • The absence of Swinson was interesting. Are enough washing their hair to let the Gvt win?

    Edit - nope. Here we got with the votes at 16 and EU amendments.

    Ms Swinson is off at the hairdressers. @Richard_Nabavi insisted yesterday, that she should get a hairstyle he approves of.

    Now I understand, it was a cunning ruse to derail Parliament by making her miss crucial votes...

    :D:D
    I do wish some on here would grow up.
    Some people on here need to lighten up.

    The whole political situation has reached the stage of farcical comedy and it was you who brought up the subject of her washing her hair.

    Pot. Kettle.
    When have I ever mentioned her washing her hair?

    Edit - Sorry that was me just now! Hadn’t even noticed it as it’s just everyday language.
    It happens to all of us sooner or later. :)
    It’s irrefutable evidence I’ve gotten old!
  • God almighty, is this bloody election happening in December or not ?

    What a generation of political pygmies we have.
  • Gabs2Gabs2 Posts: 1,268
    Nigelb said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?

    I'm no longer a PB Tory, but yes of course:

    VEUC: What the hell has choosing the government of the UK got to do with foreigners?

    VAS: The international definition of a child is under 18. We don't allow children to sign contracts, sue or be sued, open a bank account, get married without parental consent, buy alcohol or cigarettes, buy fireworks, watch certain films, own land, or get a mortgage. All of these restrictions have in common that children are not considered able to form their own mature judgements. It therefore follows that they are not mature enough to vote.

    See? Simple, wasn't it? If you are going to disagree, you really have to disagree with all of the above restrictions, because they go together.
    We should standardise on either 16 or 18 for adulthood. Whichever it is, it should be done with full consultation and consideration, with at least a five year delay if it affects voting.
    Why 'at least five years' ?

    I entirely understand the point about an election to be held in about a month's time, but that seems arbitrarily silly.
    5 years is the maximum time between elections. It means no parliament can change the rules to get reelected.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 2,005
    edited October 2019
    I fully support 16 year olds being able to vote. Just so long as they also get the rights to do things that they are not allowed to do. That includes:

    - Be on the battlefront in wars
    - Drive
    - Smoke
    - Drink alcohol
    - Be on juries
    - Leave full time education
    - Have credit cards
    - Gamble
    - Marry without parental consent
    - Get tattoos

    Unless you support 16 year olds being able to do all of the above then you shouldn't support votes at 16.

    The only reason anyone supports votes at 16 is for gerrymandering purposes.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    OllyT said:

    Brom said:

    OllyT said:

    Brom said:

    Chris said:

    Brom said:

    RobD said:

    The absence of Swinson was interesting. Are enough washing their hair to let the Gvt win?

    Edit - nope. Here we got with the votes at 16 and EU amendments.

    Both of those are wrecking amendments as that isn’t feasible before the date listed in the bill.
    Why aren't they feasible?

    EU electors are already on the electoral register and, while 16-17 year olds would need to hurry up to register, there's no reason the election couldn't go ahead despite many not having done so.

    They may not be desirable for Johnson... and may be enough for him to vote against his own election plan. But they are certainly feasible in practical terms.
    No chance, they know the public is against letting kids vote and they know there would be on election if they insist upon it.
    Why stop at citizens of Bulgaria? Why not citizens of Russia or China?
    Let's face it, they should never have let coloureds vote.
    I can imagine yourself driving a minibus full of toddlers to a polling station in order to help the remain cause. Any gerrymandering will do.
    I seriously doubt that remainers would need to gerrymander anything to win a 2nd referendum - I'm happy to put it to the test, are you?
    Sure, but you'll only get one after you fight the general election. Why are you so scared of that?
    Because a GE won't resolve the problem whereas a referendum will.

    The people who oppose a referendum but want a GE are those "democrats" who want to bulldoze their way through on 35% of the vote because they know they can't win 50% in a referendum anymore (and never would have if they had been required to spell out what Brexit actually meant before we voted).
    There was no route to a second referendum in this House of Commons this is probably the only way to bring about some form of resolution.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    DougSeal said:

    Anorak said:

    AndyJS said:

    Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?

    Many people would rather raise the voting age to 21 than drop it to 16.
    Many people think it should be restricted to people just like them.

    FWIW, I think 16 is too young, but I do understand the arguments for it.
    Saying that 16 and 17-year-olds shouldn’t be allowed to vote because some are immature and not politically engaged is the same as saying that over 80s shouldn’t be allowed to vote because some have dementia.
    Weeeeeell, now you mention it.

    Your argument could of course be made about 12 and 13 year olds. The cut-off is arbitrary to some degree. It is a matter of judgement as to where the cut-off applies, and my feeling is that 18 is about right.

    Most of the world would appear to agree with me.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    DeClare said:

    Votes for 16/17 year olds won't make much difference, exceptions like Greta Thunberg aside, most of them no little or nothing about politics and will vote along with their parents. Most people of that age group that I know are more concerned with who's winning Love Island than who's in No.10.
    Who would appeal to this age group more on social media? Boris with his jovial nature and mop of blond hair or earnest old man Corbyn with his grey beard?

    The average 16 year old will defer to their parents on politics !!

    Are you a big "Happy Days" fan?
  • RobD said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Brom said:

    It’s stupid that we can send a boy to his death in the military at 16 yet not let him vote.

    You can't do that. Only 18 year olds are allowed in conflicts.
    Something the UK had to change to comply with international law on under 18s being children, and therefore child soldiers.
    Gone are the days where we can send waves and waves of 16 year olds over the top. Sad times.
    It is a shame because they present smaller targets to the enemy.

    That’s why we won WW1 - in the end it was just the 14 year olds left, dodging under the bullets.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,774
    edited October 2019
    What a miserable contribution from IOW MP Bob Seely. Another stumbling over his words which leads me to wonder what he had with today’s lunch.

    And when he decides to say no to members opposite, he inexplicably slips into Russian.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    kinabalu said:

    DeClare said:

    Votes for 16/17 year olds won't make much difference, exceptions like Greta Thunberg aside, most of them no little or nothing about politics and will vote along with their parents. Most people of that age group that I know are more concerned with who's winning Love Island than who's in No.10.
    Who would appeal to this age group more on social media? Boris with his jovial nature and mop of blond hair or earnest old man Corbyn with his grey beard?

    The average 16 year old will defer to their parents on politics !!

    Yes, someone either didn't have kids or had some very unusual ones. :smile:
  • Chris said:

    Pierrot said:

    Brom said:

    Brom said:

    The Tories should accept the amendments. Let’s do it! Vas and Veuc, all-in, an election for every citizen!

    Lol, crazy talk. Literally no one wants that.
    Incorrect. I do for one. I reckon there are thousands more with me.

    I think you meant “I don’t want that”.
    Thousands says it all! So you think a Romanian living in the UK for a few years should get to vote both in both a UK General election and a Romanian election? Essentially any foreigner living in the UK wouldn't need to take up citizenship and could have a say in how 2 countries were run.
    Not "any foreigner". Citizens of 24 EU member states would be added to citizens of Cyprus, Malta, the Republic of Ireland, India, Pakistan, Australia, etc., who already can vote in all elections here.

    And should not be allowed to.
    Careful. Remember Enoch Powell considered ethnic Indians to be more intelligent than White Europeans.
    A good argument against if ever there was one. Standing on the other side of the argement from Powell is never a bad place to be in most cases.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,700
    On the youth: a little anecdote from years ago. I was walking the hound. There was a gang talking in low voices in a playground. I passed by. And was astounding they were discussing politics.

    They were unimpressed with Gordon Brown.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    The DUP didn't vote in the previous division, but I assume all 10 of them would be against votes at 16.

    https://commonsvotes.digiminster.com/Divisions/Details/732?byMember=false#notrecorded
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    eristdoof said:

    Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?

    I am not a PB Tory but the objections to both are simple.

    On Votes for EU citizens. People should not have the vote on the future of our country if they have no long term interest in its success. If their intent is to remain in Britain permanently then they should become British citizens and gain the vote that way. If they are not willing to do that then they should not be voting on our future. I would also remove the franchise fron anyone living outside the UK for more than 5 years. It can be restored if and when thry resettle.

    On votes at 16. An election is akin to a contract. I would consider changing to 16 if we also changed every other law surrounding age of consent including jury service and the right to enter into contracts. And drinking, smoking and driving. Funnily enough although this may not include you, lots of people in favour of votes at 16 balk at the idea of having a 16 year old drive a car or sit in judgement on them on a jury.
    But these are not all allowed at the same age now. Smoking is allowed from 16 and driving is 17. 16 year olds do not have full legal rights but they are cretainly allowed to sign a contract.

    And finally voting is not a contract.
    Can't spark up a cheroot 'till your 18, old bean.
  • blueblueblueblue Posts: 875
    Can anyone tell me what time we'll get the results of the votes in Parliament today? I'd rather avoid the proceedings all day for the sake of my blood pressure and the integrity of my computer screen. Thanks!
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 483
    Gabs2 said:

    Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?

    I'm no longer a PB Tory, but yes of course:

    VEUC: What the hell has choosing the government of the UK got to do with foreigners?

    VAS: The international definition of a child is under 18. We don't allow children to sign contracts, sue or be sued, open a bank account, get married without parental consent, buy alcohol or cigarettes, buy fireworks, watch certain films, own land, or get a mortgage. All of these restrictions have in common that children are not considered able to form their own mature judgements. It therefore follows that they are not mature enough to vote.

    See? Simple, wasn't it? If you are going to disagree, you really have to disagree with all of the above restrictions, because they go together.
    We should standardise on either 16 or 18 for adulthood. Whichever it is, it should be done with full consultation and consideration, with at least a five year delay if it affects voting.
    The age of consent for everything should be 17 and then people who have had at least 1 year's experience of adult life can qualify to vote at 18.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,359

    Gabs2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:
    Question is whether Labour swallows the rulings or uses them as excuse for voting against.
    Question is whether Bercow perverts the rulings to get his policy preferences.
    It is not Bercow, it is Lindsay Hoyle's decision
    There will be a lot of MPs deciding their vote for the next Speaker on the basis of what he decides..... If these changes get through...bye bye Speaker Hoyle.

    Just sayin', Lindsay.....
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    edited October 2019
  • TudorRoseTudorRose Posts: 1,683

    God almighty, is this bloody election happening in December or not ?

    What a generation of political pygmies we have.

    I prefer to think of them as groundhogs.
  • eristdoof said:

    Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?

    I am not a PB Tory but the objections to both are simple.

    On Votes for EU citizens. People should not have the vote on the future of our country if they have no long term interest in its success. If their intent is to remain in Britain permanently then they should become British citizens and gain the vote that way. If they are not willing to do that then they should not be voting on our future. I would also remove the franchise fron anyone living outside the UK for more than 5 years. It can be restored if and when thry resettle.

    On votes at 16. An election is akin to a contract. I would consider changing to 16 if we also changed every other law surrounding age of consent including jury service and the right to enter into contracts. And drinking, smoking and driving. Funnily enough although this may not include you, lots of people in favour of votes at 16 balk at the idea of having a 16 year old drive a car or sit in judgement on them on a jury.
    But these are not all allowed at the same age now. Smoking is allowed from 16 and driving is 17. 16 year olds do not have full legal rights but they are cretainly allowed to sign a contract.

    And finally voting is not a contract.
    Smoking is now 18.

    Voting us as important if not more important than signing a contract. Or at least we should consider it so. Yhe vhanges you dupport woukd cheapen it even further.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Overall majority:

    Con 2 / 2.02
    No overall maj 2.24 / 2.26

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.136297311
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    Gabs2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Gabs2 said:

    Can the PB Tories explain their principled objection to Vas and Veuc?

    I'm no longer a PB Tory, but yes of course:

    VEUC: What the hell has choosing the government of the UK got to do with foreigners?

    VAS: The international definition of a child is under 18. We don't allow children to sign contracts, sue or be sued, open a bank account, get married without parental consent, buy alcohol or cigarettes, buy fireworks, watch certain films, own land, or get a mortgage. All of these restrictions have in common that children are not considered able to form their own mature judgements. It therefore follows that they are not mature enough to vote.

    See? Simple, wasn't it? If you are going to disagree, you really have to disagree with all of the above restrictions, because they go together.
    We should standardise on either 16 or 18 for adulthood. Whichever it is, it should be done with full consultation and consideration, with at least a five year delay if it affects voting.
    Why 'at least five years' ?

    I entirely understand the point about an election to be held in about a month's time, but that seems arbitrarily silly.
    5 years is the maximum time between elections. It means no parliament can change the rules to get reelected.
    LOL. The votes of sixteen year olds are not going to determine an election in that manner.
  • I guess the DUP aren't particularly keen on an election but are they against the gerrymandering attempt to get kids and foreigners added to vote at the General Election? What about the former Tories etc?

    These are wrecking gerrymandering amendments and should stand or fall on their own.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,113
    MarqueeMark says: "There will be a lot of MPs deciding their vote for the next Speaker on the basis of what he decides..... If these changes get through...bye bye Speaker Hoyle.

    Just sayin', Lindsay....."

    Let`s hope he`s reading PB!
  • Gabs2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:
    Question is whether Labour swallows the rulings or uses them as excuse for voting against.
    Question is whether Bercow perverts the rulings to get his policy preferences.
    It is not Bercow, it is Lindsay Hoyle's decision
    There will be a lot of MPs deciding their vote for the next Speaker on the basis of what he decides..... If these changes get through...bye bye Speaker Hoyle.

    Just sayin', Lindsay.....
    If they pass then no GE on 9th - 12th Dec
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,359
    IanB2 said:

    What a miserable contribution from IOW MP Bob Seely. Another stumbling over his words which leads me to wonder what he had with today’s lunch.

    I imagine today has seen some VERY liquid lunches with demob happy soon-to-be ex-MPs.....
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,736

    Chris said:

    Pierrot said:

    Brom said:

    Brom said:

    The Tories should accept the amendments. Let’s do it! Vas and Veuc, all-in, an election for every citizen!

    Lol, crazy talk. Literally no one wants that.
    Incorrect. I do for one. I reckon there are thousands more with me.

    I think you meant “I don’t want that”.
    Thousands says it all! So you think a Romanian living in the UK for a few years should get to vote both in both a UK General election and a Romanian election? Essentially any foreigner living in the UK wouldn't need to take up citizenship and could have a say in how 2 countries were run.
    Not "any foreigner". Citizens of 24 EU member states would be added to citizens of Cyprus, Malta, the Republic of Ireland, India, Pakistan, Australia, etc., who already can vote in all elections here.

    And should not be allowed to.
    Careful. Remember Enoch Powell considered ethnic Indians to be more intelligent than White Europeans.
    A good argument against if ever there was one. Standing on the other side of the argement from Powell is never a bad place to be in most cases.
    Never in most cases?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,401

    IanB2 said:

    What a miserable contribution from IOW MP Bob Seely. Another stumbling over his words which leads me to wonder what he had with today’s lunch.

    I imagine today has seen some VERY liquid lunches with demob happy soon-to-be ex-MPs.....
    Until they sober up and find the election is off because all parties want one, but no parties want one.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,774
    Its actually quite shocking that some of these MPs don’t appear to be sober.
This discussion has been closed.