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.
They're legally children, so no I don't support votes for children.
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!
It’s been that way for some time
As a black plastic spectacle wearer of expensive thin high index lenses I've mentally pleaded with him to take them back to Specsavers for ages. Can't be doing his eyesight any good.
Aren't glasses supposed to be like that? My current glasses have both lenses the same, as an average of the prescription for both eyes, but the previous ones had different lenses. Has there been a change of mind by opticians?
Jezza wears glasses for reading, not usually for distance. If you look at his right optic, the horizontal lines are visible. This is a temporary prism used to treat double vision. It is possible that this has now been replaced by a prescribed prism, hence the asymmetry in his lenses.
A prism alters the position of the image, hence the asymmetry of the eyes in the picture. The frame looks straight to me.
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.
On the contrary, I would consider it the start of a political education - and the effect of an individual's vote is in itself of the most infinitesimal significance.
Unlike a contract it does not bind the voter, and the comparisons with the self-inflicted harms and addictions of alcohol and tobacco are simply absurd.
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”.
I'd agreed there is an argument for it. But as already said, far better than I, is that there is a time and a place for this debate.
Back of a fag packet on a Tuesday afternoon debating extending the GE franchise to millions more people is NOT the way to do this. It's pretty much a wrecking amendment and Labour knows it.
If I was the government (and I know they won't do this because its Boris) I'd pull the main bill, then resign the government.
Final words of, "Can't be arsed with this shit anymore. I'm going home. Over to you Jeremy....."
Is that true, though? EU citizens are already on the register. 16 year olds are already eligible to be on the register. What's the 6-month delay about?
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?
I was reminded that at one time he was considered a very fine Parliamentarian. Before he turned to the dark side.
The average age you first get the chance to actually vote in a GE is around 20, for some it will be 23 under the current rules, during which they may have had a job and been paying taxes without representation for 7 years.
Reducing the minimum to 16 would still mean that most people wont get a chance to vote in a GE until they are at least 18, and for some not until they are 21.
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.
16-18 year olds are more likely to be from a Catholic background than the electorate at large. Given the EU voters would include a lot of Polish catholics they probably aren't so keen on that either.
Is that true, though? EU citizens are already on the register. 16 year olds are already eligible to be on the register. What's the 6-month delay about?
Is that true, though? EU citizens are already on the register. 16 year olds are already eligible to be on the register. What's the 6-month delay about?
Indeed. Not all will be on the register but many are.
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.
Votes for EU citizens is problematic without the reciprocal right, but I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with granting the vote to people who live here and are subject to the law here. No taxation without representation and all that.
As to votes at sixteen any age cutoff is arbitrary. My daughter looks likely to miss out on a vote by about a week, which is bad luck for her. Whether it is better to draw that arbitrary line at 18, or 16, or 21 doesn't seem to be a great matter of principle. A bit of a rum do to change the rules at the last moment though.
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.
On the contrary, I would consider it the start of a political education - and the effect of an individual's vote is in itself of the most infinitesimal significance.
Unlike a contract it does not bind the voter, and the comparisons with the self-inflicted harms and addictions of alcohol and tobacco are simply absurd.
So it is okay for them to inflict harm on others but not on themselves?
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.
The same applies to the majority of adults I know!
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”.
I'd agreed there is an argument for it. But as already said, far better than I, is that there is a time and a place for this debate.
Back of a fag packet on a Tuesday afternoon debating extending the GE franchise to millions more people is NOT the way to do this. It's pretty much a wrecking amendment and Labour knows it.
If I was the government (and I know they won't do this because its Boris) I'd pull the main bill, then resign the government.
Final words of, "Can't be arsed with this shit anymore. I'm going home. Over to you Jeremy....."
It could happen. After all, he abandoned his previous Number One Priority - Brexit - in a fit of pique because he couldn't get it through in three days.
Maybe on the third day he'll abandon his new Number One Priority and think up a new one. Wouldn't it be nice if it was something everyone could agree on, like measures to encourage everyday politeness, or to protect the bee population?
I'm on NOM at 2.32 and again at 2.22 but Cons maj is drifting, it was 1.96 earlier today.
The further away an election seems the more it will drift. That much is obvious. If an election were to not take place until March 2020 then obviously this week's polls would have far less effect on the betting markets.
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.
They're legally children, so no I don't support votes for children.
You'd think the merest suggestion of blatant rigging of the franchise would be the kind of thing that would immediately result in a case in the Supreme Court.
But no - I bet they stay utterly silent about _this_ particular constitutional outrage...
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.
On the contrary, I would consider it the start of a political education - and the effect of an individual's vote is in itself of the most infinitesimal significance.
Unlike a contract it does not bind the voter, and the comparisons with the self-inflicted harms and addictions of alcohol and tobacco are simply absurd.
And if a party stood on a platform of lowering the drinking age to 16?
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.
On the contrary, I would consider it the start of a political education - and the effect of an individual's vote is in itself of the most infinitesimal significance.
Unlike a contract it does not bind the voter, and the comparisons with the self-inflicted harms and addictions of alcohol and tobacco are simply absurd.
So it is okay for them to inflict harm on others but not on themselves?
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.
I have a friend who always says the vote should be restricted to the landed gentry (property owning males). When I ask him with or without a mortgage, he always answers, "With a mortgage for the moment... but once its paid off....."
Is that true, though? EU citizens are already on the register. 16 year olds are already eligible to be on the register. What's the 6-month delay about?
15 year olds probably aren’t on it, for starters.
Are the Tories about to argue that we shouldn't give the vote to 16-year-olds because some people who are now only 15 would miss out? It's ingenious, I'll give it that.
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.
On the contrary, I would consider it the start of a political education - and the effect of an individual's vote is in itself of the most infinitesimal significance.
Unlike a contract it does not bind the voter, and the comparisons with the self-inflicted harms and addictions of alcohol and tobacco are simply absurd.
And if a party stood on a platform of lowering the drinking age to 16?
It’s stupid that we can send a boy to his death in the military at 16 yet not let him vote.
We cant do that. And as noted many times there are inconsistencies in how we treat people as children or as adults. Its reasonable to harmonise that. I think that best by raising the age of some things others think it best to lower the age of things.
But whether we want to treat people as adults at 16 or as children at 16, making a change for one aspect at short notice in a rush is not good procedure. It's bad enough they are getting inti the habit of passing Bill's in a day without making major changes weeks before an election.
We should be consistent, but instead we infantilise young people for some things then try to treat them as adults with others. I think Sindyref means votes at 16 is inevitable, but the merits of that are only part of the point when such a change is mooted to be implemented suddenly.
People are content that government will handle such a rapid change smoothly?
Are Corbyn and Blackford making big noises about votes for 16-17s plus EU citizens just to highlight the issue for political purposes knowing the deputy speaker will not permit them as they are wrecking amendments
Corbyn may hope they are called but Blackford wants this election and I cannot see him sabotaging the bill
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?
I'm not convinced Greta Thunberg knows anything much about politics either. All she knows is that the system isn't doing what she wants it to, and It's Not Fair.
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.
They're legally children, so no I don't support votes for children.
Better take away votes for old folk then, as many are less compus mentus than many 16 year olds . Someone earlier said people that don't have an interest in the future of the UK should be denied, so that rules out old folk folks (partic if they have no children)! Also, maybe we should introduce an IQ test for voting. Many 16 year olds have far better understanding than many people much older than them (problem here for Corbyn and Mark Francois!). Of course I don't believe any of these things, but just to point out the vacuousness of most of the arguments against 16 year olds and foreigners voting. As with everything else at the moment, peoples' views seem coloured by their views on Brexit.
Are Corbyn and Blackford making big noises about votes for 16-17s plus EU citizens just to highlight the issue for political purposes knowing the deputy speaker will not permit them as they are wrecking amendments
Corbyn may hope they are called but Blackford wants this election and I cannot see him sabotaging the bill
To avoid the need to reply to everyone, a note that I have already accepted my error about 16 year old boys in frontline combat and apologised for the mistake!
Are Corbyn and Blackford making big noises about votes for 16-17s plus EU citizens just to highlight the issue for political purposes knowing the deputy speaker will not permit them as they are wrecking amendments
Corbyn may hope they are called but Blackford wants this election and I cannot see him sabotaging the bill
Political posturing ?..
"Political posturing ?"
.com
Probably more accurate!
I’m still old enough to remember politicalfretting.com
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.
I don't think we need any lessons on vote rigging and gerrymandering from a Tory party that was perfectly content to have a second chamber composed almost entirely of hereditary Tory peers until comparatively recently.
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.
They're legally children, so no I don't support votes for children.
Can they pay taxes?
No taxation without representation?
We don't trust a 16 year old enough to allow them to buy a pack of superglue. Given that, I'd say they can wait for a vote.
UK citizens are taxed throughout the world if they work and live there. They do not get a vote. Vapid sloganeering.
Is that true, though? EU citizens are already on the register. 16 year olds are already eligible to be on the register. What's the 6-month delay about?
15 year olds probably aren’t on it, for starters.
Are the Tories about to argue that we shouldn't give the vote to 16-year-olds because some people who are now only 15 would miss out? It's ingenious, I'll give it that.
We will probably have an election every year for the next decade anyway. Chartists would have been delighted!
"They're legally children, so no I don't support votes for children."
Neither do I, and nor should any other liberals.
Even if I did support such a change - this represents such a major change that it should not be made into law via an amendment. Should be a issue in itself, discussed well away from an election date. The amendment represents either wrecking amendment or gerrymandering - take your pick.
Is that true, though? EU citizens are already on the register. 16 year olds are already eligible to be on the register. What's the 6-month delay about?
Anyone want to mention what impact on seats and seat boundary should happen if both 16/17 years and EU nationals were brought into the electorate??
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?
I'm not convinced Greta Thunberg knows anything much about politics either. All she knows is that the system isn't doing what she wants it to, and It's Not Fair.
In what way does that differ from all the (rather more geriatric) Leavers on this site?
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?
I'm not convinced Greta Thunberg knows anything much about politics either. All she knows is that the system isn't doing what she wants it to, and It's Not Fair.
Even if that characterisation were true, how is that any different from a large part of the electorate ?
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.
I don't think we need any lessons on vote rigging and gerrymandering from a Tory party that was perfectly content to have a second chamber composed almost entirely of hereditary Tory peers until comparatively recently.
A change made a quarter of a century ago? And to a situation that never affected General Elections in any case? You're not very good at this whole arguing thing are you?
So far as the amendments to the election bill are concerned, they are clearly nothing to do with the bill itself and really should not be accepted for voting upon.
"They're legally children, so no I don't support votes for children."
Neither do I, and nor should any other liberals.
Even if I did support such a change - this represents such a major change that it should not be made into law via an amendment. Should be a issue in itself, discussed well away from an election date. The amendment represents either wrecking amendment or gerrymandering - take your pick.
The proposed election itself is a major constitutional change as it overrides the FTPA. What’s the difference?
So far as the amendments to the election bill are concerned, they are clearly nothing to do with the bill itself and really should not be accepted for voting upon.
"They're legally children, so no I don't support votes for children."
Neither do I, and nor should any other liberals.
Even if I did support such a change - this represents such a major change that it should not be made into law via an amendment. Should be a issue in itself, discussed well away from an election date. The amendment represents either wrecking amendment or gerrymandering - take your pick.
The proposed election itself is a major constitutional change as it overrides the FTPA. What’s the difference?
Hardly the same. The FTPA is a political construct which has been in place for less than 10 years.
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.
They're legally children, so no I don't support votes for children.
Better take away votes for old folk then, as many are less compus mentus than many 16 year olds . Someone earlier said people that don't have an interest in the future of the UK should be denied, so that rules out old folk folks (partic if they have no children)! Also, maybe we should introduce an IQ test for voting. Many 16 year olds have far better understanding than many people much older than them (problem here for Corbyn and Mark Francois!). Of course I don't believe any of these things, but just to point out the vacuousness of most of the arguments against 16 year olds and foreigners voting. As with everything else at the moment, peoples' views seem coloured by their views on Brexit.
Not so. The arguments against Votes at 16 and Votes for EU nationals apply irrespective of Brexit or not. Which is why I would extend exclusions to any non Britons and also to any Britons living outside the UK for more than 5 years (with exceptions for those posted on State business).
But I would not support any changes including those I have suggested until a proper debate has been held and certainly not during the current round of voting.
I may have missed this over the last few days, in all the GE excitement, but any news on what is happening to the Speaker replacement vote?
If this goes through tonight, I'm assuming Parliament dissolves before Monday, when it was due to be held?
Bercow said he would step down either when Parliament was dissolved or on 31st October. I assume there will be no moves towards a vote until after that date.
"They're legally children, so no I don't support votes for children."
Neither do I, and nor should any other liberals.
Even if I did support such a change - this represents such a major change that it should not be made into law via an amendment. Should be a issue in itself, discussed well away from an election date. The amendment represents either wrecking amendment or gerrymandering - take your pick.
The proposed election itself is a major constitutional change as it overrides the FTPA. What’s the difference?
Not all changes are the same. A changed date when even the FTPA allows for other dates is not something trivial, but adjusting the voting franchise has potentially huge implications and is long lasting.
This debate is the oppositions moment to posture just as Boris wanted to posture with the WAIB even though it would not pass once an election was called . Its early campaigning.
16yos shouldn't get the vote. There's no reason there should be one single age at which teenagers should get the right to do every adult thing. It's fair to compare the right to vote with the right to agree a contract or the eligibility for jury service. It's not fair to compare it to the right to have sex, and 16yos and 17yos shouldn't be in the armed forces anyway. Plus most 16yos are very gullible.
Similarly I can't see why foreign citizens who aren't also British citizens should get the vote either, although with (legally not foreign) RoI citizens the arrangements should probably best be left as they are. I had no sympathy with those Norwegian citizens living in Britain who bemoaned the possibility of problems arising with their residence rights after Brexit, explaining that they've lived here for decades and the only reason they haven't applied for British citizenship is that their own government won't let them - meaning that if they obtained British citizenship they'd get stripped of the Norwegian citizenship that is clearly more important to them even though they live in Britain. Well, tough. Treaty obligations between countries change and there was and is nothing stopping them from applying to become British even if it means losing the citizenship of some country they don't live in.
But politics is dirty. Elections are a game.
Meanwhile most Tories who believe it's disgraceful that Labour and the LDs want to give Romanians the vote haven't been campaigning for years for Canadians, Pakistanis, Indians, Cypriots, etc. to be deprived of it.
Can someone table an amendment to round up all the idiots who stand behind Simon McCoy and scream, whilst he's trying to deliver news?
Something to unite us all.
McCoy is at liberty to use a TV studio if the delicate flower doesn’t like it
Its more for the benefit of the viewers - McCoy doesn't seem bothered by it, but he was just trying to deliver a headline about the Grenfell fire, whilst some muppet screamed something no-one could make out anyway.
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.
I think there's a case for saying that adulthood can come on gradually rather than in one day and having different thresholds for different activities.
I thought that was the practical British way, and that it was the revolutionary Continentals who liked to have an excessively ordered system.
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.
They're legally children, so no I don't support votes for children.
Better take away votes for old folk then, as many are less compus mentus than many 16 year olds . Someone earlier said people that don't have an interest in the future of the UK should be denied, so that rules out old folk folks (partic if they have no children)! Also, maybe we should introduce an IQ test for voting. Many 16 year olds have far better understanding than many people much older than them (problem here for Corbyn and Mark Francois!). Of course I don't believe any of these things, but just to point out the vacuousness of most of the arguments against 16 year olds and foreigners voting. As with everything else at the moment, peoples' views seem coloured by their views on Brexit.
Why should an arbitrary age limit be set at either end of the scale? Not unreasonable in my opinion to allow the vote to any UK national who passes some kind of multi dimensional test
"They're legally children, so no I don't support votes for children."
Neither do I, and nor should any other liberals.
Even if I did support such a change - this represents such a major change that it should not be made into law via an amendment. Should be a issue in itself, discussed well away from an election date. The amendment represents either wrecking amendment or gerrymandering - take your pick.
The proposed election itself is a major constitutional change as it overrides the FTPA. What’s the difference?
That the opposition should at least have to win an election first before rigging the electoral system in their favour!
Is that true, though? EU citizens are already on the register. 16 year olds are already eligible to be on the register. What's the 6-month delay about?
15 year olds probably aren’t on it, for starters.
Are the Tories about to argue that we shouldn't give the vote to 16-year-olds because some people who are now only 15 would miss out? It's ingenious, I'll give it that.
More than 10% of current 15 year olds will be 16 by the time of the election.
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.
I think there's a case for saying that adulthood can come on gradually rather than in one day and having different thresholds for different activities.
I thought that was the practical British way, and that it was the revolutionary Continentals who liked to have an excessively ordered system.
It may be that things are gradual and not rigid. But given what we say they cannot be trusted to decide for themselves at 16 is voting one we should? It's a more difficult question than just pretended.
"They're legally children, so no I don't support votes for children."
Neither do I, and nor should any other liberals.
Even if I did support such a change - this represents such a major change that it should not be made into law via an amendment. Should be a issue in itself, discussed well away from an election date. The amendment represents either wrecking amendment or gerrymandering - take your pick.
The proposed election itself is a major constitutional change as it overrides the FTPA. What’s the difference?
Hardly the same. The FTPA is a political construct which has been in place for less than 10 years.
Votes at 18 is a political construct too, albeit one that has been in place a few decades longer.
16yos shouldn't get the vote. There's no reason there should be one single age at which teenagers should get the right to do every adult thing. It's fair to compare the right to vote with the right to agree a contract or the eligibility for jury service. Plus most 16yos are very gullible.
Similarly I can't see why foreign citizens who aren't also British citizens should get the vote either, although with (legally not foreign) RoI citizens the arrangements should probably best be left as they are. I had no sympathy with those Norwegian citizens living in Britain who bemoaned the possibility of problems arising with their residence rights after Brexit, explaining that they've lived here for decades and the only reason they haven't applied for British citizenship is that their own government won't let them - meaning that if they obtained British citizenship they'd get stripped of the Norwegian citizenship that is clearly more important to them even though they live in Britain. Well, tough. Treaty obligations between countries change and there was and is nothing stopping them from applying to become British even if it means losing the citizenship of some country they don't live in.
But politics is dirty.
Even Norway will allow Dual Citizenship from the end of this year.
I may have missed this over the last few days, in all the GE excitement, but any news on what is happening to the Speaker replacement vote?
If this goes through tonight, I'm assuming Parliament dissolves before Monday, when it was due to be held?
Bercow said he would step down either when Parliament was dissolved or on 31st October. I assume there will be no moves towards a vote until after that date.
There were pleas today - incl from MPs other than his supporters - for postponing the Speaker election until after the big election
So far as the amendments to the election bill are concerned, they are clearly nothing to do with the bill itself and really should not be accepted for voting upon.
I expect Corbyn and Blackford knew that so they both had a free run on supporting them without actually stopping the GE
It would be more than odd if Blackford wanted to stop a pre xmas election after all he has said
I may have missed this over the last few days, in all the GE excitement, but any news on what is happening to the Speaker replacement vote?
If this goes through tonight, I'm assuming Parliament dissolves before Monday, when it was due to be held?
Bercow said he would step down either when Parliament was dissolved or on 31st October. I assume there will be no moves towards a vote until after that date.
There were pleas today - incl from MPs other than his supporters - for postponing the Speaker election until after the big election
Much as I think he is an atrocious Speaker it does seem daft to choose a new one now and then have to reconfirm it again in a few weeks.
That's like all the people sending up fireworks at the minute don't they know it's far too early Guy Fawkes isn't for another week! Why send fireworks up now? It's so inconsiderate as it scares animals ... my dog got so scared last night he almost knocked our Christmas Tree over ...
Labour's constitutional tinkering and two-faced bullshittery over the EU (reneging on a promised referendum, no transitional controls, wide open doors to 'rub the right's face in diversity', devolved political institutions to 'kill nationalism stone dead') planted many of the seeds of discontent that are being harvested today.
16yos shouldn't get the vote. There's no reason there should be one single age at which teenagers should get the right to do every adult thing. It's fair to compare the right to vote with the right to agree a contract or the eligibility for jury service. Plus most 16yos are very gullible...
I'll repeat the question - if that characterisation of most 16 year olds is true, how is it different from a significant part of the existing electorate ?
As for the comparison with jury service, it is clearly absurd to compare the infinitesimal effect of a single electoral vote with that of a juror's decision. Which is perhaps why there is an upper age limit on jury service...
On-topic: good table, and, if I remember, I may actually stay up for the results this time. Mr. JS' spreadsheet last time (I think) was streets ahead of broadcast coverage.
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?
I'm not convinced Greta Thunberg knows anything much about politics either. All she knows is that the system isn't doing what she wants it to, and It's Not Fair.
In what way does that differ from all the (rather more geriatric) Leavers on this site?
There's no record of a referendum where a majority of people voted for sweeping new measures to combat climate change?
The focus of activists needs to be on getting the Green party vote up to the levels ukip were achieving in the first part of this decade. That then creates an opening to discuss the issue at the level of national politics. Shouting at current leaders for not doing something their electorates don't want is immature. The adults around Greta Thunberg should know better.
"They're legally children, so no I don't support votes for children."
Neither do I, and nor should any other liberals.
Even if I did support such a change - this represents such a major change that it should not be made into law via an amendment. Should be a issue in itself, discussed well away from an election date. The amendment represents either wrecking amendment or gerrymandering - take your pick.
The proposed election itself is a major constitutional change as it overrides the FTPA. What’s the difference?
Hardly the same. The FTPA is a political construct which has been in place for less than 10 years.
Votes at 18 is a political construct too, albeit one that has been in place a few decades longer.
if by 'a few' you mean 4 decades more (in 1970), and had an entire act devoted to it rather than an ammendment by the back door, then sure..
Comments
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-admits-he-is-being-treated-for-eye-condition-th5dhlpcd
Unlike a contract it does not bind the voter, and the comparisons with the self-inflicted harms and addictions of alcohol and tobacco are simply absurd.
Back of a fag packet on a Tuesday afternoon debating extending the GE franchise to millions more people is NOT the way to do this. It's pretty much a wrecking amendment and Labour knows it.
If I was the government (and I know they won't do this because its Boris) I'd pull the main bill, then resign the government.
Final words of, "Can't be arsed with this shit anymore. I'm going home. Over to you Jeremy....."
Reducing the minimum to 16 would still mean that most people wont get a chance to vote in a GE until they are at least 18, and for some not until they are 21.
Given the EU voters would include a lot of Polish catholics they probably aren't so keen on that either.
As to votes at sixteen any age cutoff is arbitrary. My daughter looks likely to miss out on a vote by about a week, which is bad luck for her. Whether it is better to draw that arbitrary line at 18, or 16, or 21 doesn't seem to be a great matter of principle. A bit of a rum do to change the rules at the last moment though.
Maybe on the third day he'll abandon his new Number One Priority and think up a new one. Wouldn't it be nice if it was something everyone could agree on, like measures to encourage everyday politeness, or to protect the bee population?
What a piece of work it is.
Just another example of the House Of Fools pissing about...
No taxation without representation?
I can feel my inner Scrooge coming out.
But no - I bet they stay utterly silent about _this_ particular constitutional outrage...
Under-eighteens cannot be sent into a combat theatre or a war zone
I'm not *quite* sure if he's joking.
But whether we want to treat people as adults at 16 or as children at 16, making a change for one aspect at short notice in a rush is not good procedure. It's bad enough they are getting inti the habit of passing Bill's in a day without making major changes weeks before an election.
We should be consistent, but instead we infantilise young people for some things then try to treat them as adults with others. I think Sindyref means votes at 16 is inevitable, but the merits of that are only part of the point when such a change is mooted to be implemented suddenly.
People are content that government will handle such a rapid change smoothly?
Are Corbyn and Blackford making big noises about votes for 16-17s plus EU citizens just to highlight the issue for political purposes knowing the deputy speaker will not permit them as they are wrecking amendments
Corbyn may hope they are called but Blackford wants this election and I cannot see him sabotaging the bill
Political posturing ?..
To reminder us what stable, mature government actually was like.
.com
Probably more accurate!
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/1189202143649128448
UK citizens are taxed throughout the world if they work and live there. They do not get a vote. Vapid sloganeering.
"They're legally children, so no I don't support votes for children."
Neither do I, and nor should any other liberals.
Even if I did support such a change - this represents such a major change that it should not be made into law via an amendment. Should be a issue in itself, discussed well away from an election date. The amendment represents either wrecking amendment or gerrymandering - take your pick.
No?
But as a matter of interest why is it any more of a 'wrecking amendment' than Letwin on the MV was?
Something to unite us all.
If this goes through tonight, I'm assuming Parliament dissolves before Monday, when it was due to be held?
But I would not support any changes including those I have suggested until a proper debate has been held and certainly not during the current round of voting.
Or rather autres présidents du parlement.
This debate is the oppositions moment to posture just as Boris wanted to posture with the WAIB even though it would not pass once an election was called . Its early campaigning.
Similarly I can't see why foreign citizens who aren't also British citizens should get the vote either, although with (legally not foreign) RoI citizens the arrangements should probably best be left as they are. I had no sympathy with those Norwegian citizens living in Britain who bemoaned the possibility of problems arising with their residence rights after Brexit, explaining that they've lived here for decades and the only reason they haven't applied for British citizenship is that their own government won't let them - meaning that if they obtained British citizenship they'd get stripped of the Norwegian citizenship that is clearly more important to them even though they live in Britain. Well, tough. Treaty obligations between countries change and there was and is nothing stopping them from applying to become British even if it means losing the citizenship of some country they don't live in.
But politics is dirty. Elections are a game.
Meanwhile most Tories who believe it's disgraceful that Labour and the LDs want to give Romanians the vote haven't been campaigning for years for Canadians, Pakistanis, Indians, Cypriots, etc. to be deprived of it.
I thought that was the practical British way, and that it was the revolutionary Continentals who liked to have an excessively ordered system.
100%, the way MPs are going.
It would be more than odd if Blackford wanted to stop a pre xmas election after all he has said
(Joking, my wife told me that one last night)
Labour's constitutional tinkering and two-faced bullshittery over the EU (reneging on a promised referendum, no transitional controls, wide open doors to 'rub the right's face in diversity', devolved political institutions to 'kill nationalism stone dead') planted many of the seeds of discontent that are being harvested today.
As for the comparison with jury service, it is clearly absurd to compare the infinitesimal effect of a single electoral vote with that of a juror's decision.
Which is perhaps why there is an upper age limit on jury service...
(according to ITV Wales Political Ed on Twitter).
In the US a lot of trees seem to go up in mid September and carry Halloween decorations until replaced by Xmas ones on 1 November
The focus of activists needs to be on getting the Green party vote up to the levels ukip were achieving in the first part of this decade. That then creates an opening to discuss the issue at the level of national politics. Shouting at current leaders for not doing something their electorates don't want is immature. The adults around Greta Thunberg should know better.